PDA

View Full Version : Revelation: The Greek



Clifton
Feb 25th 2008, 09:47 PM
Reply rerouted from post 1551754 due to topic difference(s).


I never said that.

And yet, you infer as much.:hmm:


We're going way off on a tangent. No tangent for me – I love and take pleasure in defending the underlying texts of the scriptures: the Hebrew and Greek – I’ve been doing it since the last century. Now, this is not always feasible, e.g. a form of χιλιοι <5507 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5507)> in Revelation 20 (and in 2 Peter 3:8) being used verses a form of χιλιας <5505 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5505)> - does it mean a LITERAL 1000 or a symbolic or figure for a long period of time? That has never been determined – re: it’s one opinion verses another’s, and we do not know which one is correct for sure (pick "heads" or "tails" and flip a coin to select one, or just conclude :) ).


Our discussion originally began when you said that Revelation 1:1 meant that the events would happen quickly, not that the events would happen "soon".No, I gave the literal reading of the verse from the Greek. The discussion is the same, but on my side, includes the governing preposition εν for the dative;

After 1900 years, the "idea" that anyone would drop the εν from the text and change a noun into an adverb like “soon” or “shortly”, is absurd, since "soon" has “long” passed. It sounds more of a reading that some translator just copied off another (and they admit they do this at times), or has not extracted the definition fully (like referring in BDAG, 992-93), and leaped too quick (pun intended).


I disagree with your translation. I said that Greek is also properly translated as "soon" and is more in context with what the disciples believed.It's not "my" translation, it is the proper translation of the Greek, and that is how we learn it - and my Greek Dictionary alone is over 1500 pages long.

So the bottom line remains the same, it is that you have no textual support that εν ταχει was replaced with anything else - there's no such thing as "scriptural support for an opinion" that “automatically” changes scripture elsewhere, like replacing ταχει with something like Παραχρημα or ευθεως, and dropping the εν (which, BTW, would require a destruction and construction of different words in the Greek).


I do not have the opinion that the events of Revelation will happen over a long time. I see no scriptural evidence that, once the events of Revelation begin, that they will occur over centuries. God's judgements in the past never take that long. They take a long time to start, but once started, it's warp speed! Well you get the Greek right here, so what is the problem? Surely, you do not expect me to toss a pile of text books, rewrite the Greek Dictionary, and years of studies over your "opinion" do you?:hmm: ...Or ANY mistranslations at all, do you? When we learn Greek, we are informed about some issues not quite right about translations here or there (they simply have occasions to fumble every now and then).


This I must strongly disagree with. I have already given scriptural support for my opinion, so I won't repeat it here. Just because the early disciples were wrong doesn't mean that wasn't what they believed.As I already pointed out, most (if not all) of the disciples were gone by the time Revelation was collected and compiled – now the disciples I refer to, are the personal ones of Christ when He was on Earth in the flesh. But as to whom Paul as speaking to (if that are the ones you are addressing), he corrected their line of thinking in a follow-up letter (you have not addressed the question, among others, as to whom you are describing as “disciples”, though you add the word “early” – any “believer” was described as such in the past and historical texts) - and even if they were, what they "believed" or "thought" does not “automatically” change the reading of scripture elsewhere either and were knowingly given false information. You have not address many things here, like the impact on other scriptures your "opinion" causes, and that is understandable. “Scriptural support” comes only when it is not necessary to rework the other scriptures, otherwise, it is not “Scriptural support” at all.



This is a common misconception that for some reason runs rampant today. But I find no evidence whatsoever that the disciples believed in the 1 day = 1000 years theory. That “misconception” as you call it, was that of Irenaeus, which spoke to people whom spoke to the Revelation's John (the Presbyter, the Seer) face to face – now, he was not able to glean whom/what the antichrist was or would be, or what the number of the beast referred to, but he gleaned quite a bit from those people – thus, if people are following the tradition and belief since that early ages, (and before, as I understand it from the Hebrew side), I of course, fail to see what authority you have to term it as a misconception – even though it may be correct. But FTR, The Hebrew Scriptures came BEFORE the disciples – that is a bigger part of the Holy Bible.;)

markedward
Feb 26th 2008, 12:47 AM
If this is a personal debate, you could have kept it in that thread or, as you wanted to avoid derailment, kept it to a PM.

If you're trying to include other people in the discussion, it just means they would have to go back to the other thread anyway, so it would have best stayed in there, I think, just to keep it all localized.

HisLeast
Feb 26th 2008, 12:54 AM
Maybe there were a few people in the discussion and said discussion was offtopic on the original thread.

Clifton
Feb 26th 2008, 01:06 AM
If this is a personal debate, you could have kept it in that thread or, as you wanted to avoid derailment, kept it to a PM.

I moved the discussion to a new thread due to it being off-topic to the OP of the thread it was in, (saving an admin/host the time writing out a "back to topic notice"), plus, at the same time, I gave this thread a title that could open up other "avenues" ("discussions") to the Greek in Revelation more than just εν ταχει - say for example, a form of χιλιοι as used in Revelation 20 (this opens up where different views vary on whether it means 1000 or a long span of time, and possibly why the user believes their view, etc.), αντιπας <493 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1577)>, and so on.

While a great deal of Revelation is symbolics, the words have different/hidden meanings, etc., and there are more interpretations than there have been generations since it was compiled I guess, it still helps to know the Greek Structure, when feasible.


If you're trying to include other people in the discussion, it just means they would have to go back to the other thread anyway, so it would have best stayed in there, I think, just to keep it all localized.I agree with you, but at least there is a post link that loads up the thread on the proper page;). I was unaware that the issue of "εν ταχει" would go beyond a couple of messages (never happened before), but others may have questions about that, and the thread title will allow for other words - like the form of χιλιοι as used in Revelation 20, and hey, you can start by specifying which you believe it is (and perhaps why), a literal 1000, or symbolic for an extended period of time?:)

the rookie
Feb 26th 2008, 03:27 AM
Personally, I am LOVING this discussion - so I hope it continues. I'm learning lots. Thanks for shifting it here.

Teke
Feb 29th 2008, 11:17 PM
..... specifying which you believe it is (and perhaps why), a literal 1000, or symbolic for an extended period of time?:)[/FONT]

I believe it is an extended period of time, as Jesus rules eternally (Luke 1:33).:D

Clifton
Mar 2nd 2008, 03:59 AM
(Revelation 20:4abi) I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. They lived, and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Okay, there’s been one user input in the previous post - I would like to hear from people discuss on whether they think the word “thousand” in Revelation 20 means a “literal thousand” or “a segment of time” (unknown to us, or known if you believe this period is historic – past history). And optionally, your reasons and thoughts on why you believe – this includes folks that believe this thousand years is of the past, present, or future.

At this time, I think the word “thousand” in Revelation 20 could either mean a “literal thousand” or “a segment of time” (is there a third option?), so I am more interesting in watching than participating in this discussion so that I might learn from others.

I will close with this: underlying the word “thousand” in Revelation 20 is the Greek form of “CHILIOI”, which is Strong’s #5507 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5507). The origin of this word is of uncertain affinity, but what is known is that it is plural;

Do note there is also another Greek word which can mean “thousand”, Strong’s #5505 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5505), "CHILIAS", which additionally can be, “the number one thousand”:

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

5507 χιλιοι chilioi, pronounced khil’-ee-oy

plural of uncertain affinity; TDNT-9:466,1316; adjective

In the AV Bible -thousand 11; 11 times.

1) a thousand

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

5505 χιλιας chilias, pronounced khil-ee-as’

from 5507; TDNT-9:466,1316; noun feminine

AV-thousand 23; 23 times.

1) a thousand, the number one thousand

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

Blessings.

honcho
Mar 2nd 2008, 07:16 AM
The early church fathers believed in some form of a literal millennium. Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian.

Multiples of 1,000 are interpreted literally such as the 2,000 dischilioi swine of Mk. 5:13 and the 3.000 trischilioi souls added to the church at Pentecost (Acts 2:41) and the 5,000 pentechilioi men who believed the word (4:4). If we interpret multiples of a thousand literally we should do the same for a 1,000. Let us be consistent in our interpretations.

Merton
Mar 2nd 2008, 11:49 AM
This is no definitive study---


The word "thousand" in Rev.20 is not one thousand and the years are not one thousand years, but just years as in the years of the thousand.

It really is the number of a mature man as the 144000 are not a literal number, just as the 144 cubits of the measurement width of the living stones are an angelic measurement, meaning it is the spiritual measurement of their position in the New Jerusalem, which are all precious stones which differ, but all together show something total of Christ who is the thousand in stature.

This also shows that the time of the New Jerusalem's revealing to the nations, (the millennium so called) God is not yet ALL in ALL.

We are told in Eph.ch 4 that something must continue until we all together are as one man.

Adam fell short of the thousand man but Christs description in resurrection is 8000 and the cubical measurement of the Holy Place in the House of the Lord is 8000 cubical cubits.

When we look in the OT we find the word thousand included with numbers denoting other things too, but even the 24000 here is speaking of mature men who did know better so the penalty was severe--

Num 25:9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

Now the short answer to the 24 elders of Rev. is that there are 24 (2x12)books from and including the gospel of John to the book of Revelation. which makes for 42 books previous (7x6)

1Ch 23:4 Of which, twenty and four thousand were to set forward the work of the house of the LORD; ---

1Ch 23:3 Now the Levites were numbered from the age of thirty years and upward: and their number by their polls, man by man, was thirty and eight thousand.

The levites had to be 30 years of age to be ministers of the sanctuary which number is eight thousand, the number of resurrection which is eight (not 9 yet) . I can see from this that the word thousand is the number of the Kingdom of God with its mature members.

This is all rough but it is something that one considers when coming across a number, like 120 trumpets (12x10)

I like the way that the KJ version gives the numbers--

2Ch 2:17 And Solomon numbered all the strangers that were in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his father had numbered them; and they were found a hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred.

153,600 makes no sense but 153 thousand and 600 does.

Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, a hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.


2Ch 29:33 And the consecrated things were six hundred oxen and three thousand sheep.

Of course the number thousand can mean just thousand and not type anything, but the OT people knew what number that they should select which was spiritually right.

Only God could have given them the right numbers.

Measuring the temple in Ezekiel-- shows that the numbers there are not to be literally understood, as the 1500 miles of the new Jerusalem is not literal either.

Rev 21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.


Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, a hundred and forty and four cubits, accordingto the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.


Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:

I have given up trying to teach anyone anything. Every person has to be taught by the teacher Himself and all we do is point the way to Him.


Merton.

PaulT
Mar 3rd 2008, 05:50 PM
It is a common misconception that Revelation 1:1 says that, but it does not say anything of the sort in the Greek New Testaments. I am aware that some English translations have failed to translate that verse properly
(usually, their dropping of translating the Greek word "en" which is a preposition to the Greek Noun "taxei"). What it means is that "when" these things occur, they will occur "quickly", "with speed / suddenness / quickness." The time will be short when compared to thousands of years.

(1) This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that are to occur with speed[1], in future ages[2], which he sent and made known by his angel[3] to his servant, John,
(2) who testified to God’s word, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, about everything that he saw, both the things that are[4] and those that must happen after these.


I saw this response of yours to this comment, “1. The events prophesied were to be "soon;" [Rev 1:1]” on the thread dealing with 666. You indicate above you are aware of a “some” English translations that render a translation other than what is really in the “Greek” New Testament. What do you think lead these translators to render the passage as,

“must shortly take place”, NASB, NKJV
“must shortly come to pass”, ASV, The New Testament in Modern Speech, by R.F. Weymouth
“must soon take place” RVS, NIV, ESV
“must shortly happen” NEB
“must very soon take place” The New Testament in Modern English, J.B. Philips, The New Testament in the Language of the People, Charles B. Williams
“what must come to pass very soon” The Holy Bible: A New Translation, James Moffatt
“must shortly and speedily come to pass” Amplified Bible
“what must happen very soon” Today’s English Version.
“what must happen soon” New Testament is the Language of Today, William F. Beck

By my count there are 14 different translations that all provide the same sense that you suggest isn’t accurate.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 3rd 2008, 06:32 PM
I saw this response of yours to this comment, “1. The events prophesied were to be "soon;" [Rev 1:1]” on the thread dealing with 666. You indicate above you are aware of a “some” English translations that render a translation other than what is really in the “Greek” New Testament. What do you think lead these translators to render the passage as,
The lack of taking the Greek “εν” ("en") and leaping from the definition of ταχει “too quickly” (pun intended). The word is derived from the stem, Ταχ, “speed, hurry, quick”. ταχει itself is a dative, thus, “εν” puts a greater force on it.

I'm rearranging your quotes here:


“must shortly take place”, NASB, NKJV
“must shortly happen” NEB
Philips, The New Testament in the Language of the People, Charles B. Williams
“must shortly come to pass”, ASV, The New Testament in Modern Speech, by R.F. Weymouth
To a technical degree, such words are "fair", but do not convey the proper meaning to the reader, and the grammar is also wrong. If the drop of the Greek "en" was put into the text, it would render like "with shortly", or "by shortly", or "in shortly". Ironically, at this rate, it would sound better as "with shortness", but that is not good English for this text, but at least still means that when the things do happen, they will occur in a short amount of time (a period of time that is shortened by comparison of the ages of the world).


“must shortly and speedily come to pass” Amplified BibleThis is unacceptable. Such a paraphrase would be better rendered "must speedily come to pass” (IOW, "with (en) speed (tach-ay)").


“what must come to pass very soon” The Holy Bible: A New Translation, James Moffatt “must soon take place” RVS, NIV, ESV
“must very soon take place” The New Testament in Modern English, J.B. “what must happen very soon” Today’s English Version.
“what must happen soon” New Testament is the Language of Today, William F. BeckYea, I got some others that do that, even the new NET Bible. But there is a difference if a parent tells their kid to clean up their "right now", "quickly", or "soon."


By my count there are 14 different translations that all provide the same sense that you suggest isn’t accurate. Oh, and I am sure there are more - I have over 50 translations on my computer. These little slip ups are no reason to shelf the Bible, or delete them from the computer. Perhaps the translator(s) thought they were conveying the meaning(s) to the end-user at least sufficiently. Having several translations help better understand where people are coming from.

Here's from the Analytical-Literal Translation (Version 2. They have a Version 3 out now):

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves what things are necessary to occur with quickness. And He made it known, having sent through His angel to His slave John, (Rev 1:1 ALT)

Blessings.

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2008, 07:59 PM
My lack of understanding grammar in school was so bad, I had a teacher once tell me I would never be able to write a complete sentence...that made sense anyway. :rolleyes:

So forgive me if I don't follow this very well...

I do look up the original language scripture was written in (depending on it being OT or NT) because I know the real meaning of one word can change the whole meaning of on sentence. It can make a huge difference if a person wants to fully understand what is going on. My problem is they offer many different translations of the same words and trying to figure out which one is right can be a nightmare! Maybe you can give me some pointers on that some time.

Right now in my studies...I take the position that a thousands years is not literal...its a long period of time and it started when Christ defeated satan on the cross. That satan is now bound as we read about here:

Revelation 20
Satan Bound 1000 Years
1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

To answer objections to this...satan is not flesh and blood and cannot be physically bound..he is bound by the Word of God...he cannot stop the spread of the gospel throughout the world (though technically its already been spread through the world). He can still harass people sure...but he cannot stop the nations from hearing the Word of God like before Christ.

How long exactly does this period of time last? I assume until Christ puts all His enemies under His feet.

1 Corinthians 15
24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

The disciples weren't wrong in saying Christ would return soon...as they weren't talking about His Second Coming but about His judgment which did happen soon (quickly, etc)...40 years after Jesus ascended back to Heaven.

God bless

Clifton
Mar 3rd 2008, 08:33 PM
My lack of understanding grammar in school was so bad, I had a teacher once tell me I would never be able to write a complete sentence...that made sense anyway. :rolleyes:

So forgive me if I don't follow this very well...

I do look up the original language scripture was written in (depending on it being OT or NT) because I know the real meaning of one word can change the whole meaning of on sentence. It can make a huge difference if a person wants to fully understand what is going on. My problem is they offer many different translations of the same words and trying to figure out which one is right can be a nightmare! Maybe you can give me some pointers on that some time.
I'll be happy to do so as I can - what I don't know off the top of my head, I have more than a arm full of resources of experts to get it from.

As for words having different meanings, like English, that depends upon the context, modifiers like prepositions and other words, and the form of the word. If you read something in English, like a book, newspaper, magazine, etc., you may need to refer to one or more of your English dictionaries to see what that word it means in its context.


Right now in my studies...I take the position that a thousands years is not literal...its a long period of time and it started when Christ defeated satan on the cross. That satan is now bound as we read about here:

Revelation 20
Satan Bound 1000 Years
1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

To answer objections to this...satan is not flesh and blood and cannot be physically bound..he is bound by the Word of God...he cannot stop the spread of the gospel throughout the world (though technically its already been spread through the world). He can still harass people sure...but he cannot stop the nations from hearing the Word of God like before Christ.

How long exactly does this period of time last? I assume until Christ puts all His enemies under His feet.

1 Corinthians 15
24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

The disciples weren't wrong in saying Christ would return soon...as they weren't talking about His Second Coming but about His judgment which did happen soon (quickly, etc)...40 years after Jesus ascended back to Heaven.

God blessI appreciate your input, and from everybody else on this. I am curious as to how people view the "1000" number in Revelation 20 and especially why. Thanks a bunch to all of ya.;)

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 3rd 2008, 09:14 PM
The lack of taking the Greek “εν” ("en") and leaping from the definition of ταχει “too quickly” (pun intended). The word is derived from the stem, Ταχ, “speed, hurry, quick”. ταχει itself is a dative, thus, “εν” puts a greater force on it.

I'm rearranging your quotes here:


To a technical degree, such words are "fair", but do not convey the proper meaning to the reader, and the grammar is also wrong. If the drop of the Greek "en" was put into the text, it would render like "with shortly", or "by shortly", or "in shortly". Ironically, at this rate, it would sound better as "with shortness", but that is not good English for this text, but at least still means that when the things do happen, they will occur in a short amount of time (a period of time that is shortened by comparison of the ages of the world).

This is unacceptable. Such a paraphrase would be better rendered "must speedily come to pass” (IOW, "with (en) speed (tach-ay)").

Yea, I got some others that do that, even the new NET Bible. But there is a difference if a parent tells their kid to clean up their "right now", "quickly", or "soon."

Oh, and I am sure there are more - I have over 50 translations on my computer. These little slip ups are no reason to shelf the Bible, or delete them from the computer. Perhaps the translator(s) thought they were conveying the meaning(s) to the end-user at least sufficiently. Having several translations help better understand where people are coming from.

Here's from the Analytical-Literal Translation (Version 2. They have a Version 3 out now):

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves what things are necessary to occur with quickness. And He made it known, having sent through His angel to His slave John, (Rev 1:1 ALT)

Blessings.
Thank you for the translation, but how many English translations read what you suggest is the correct rendering of the Greek text? My point is that you seemingly shift sense from “when” to “how fast” while all the translations I provided you maintain the “when” sense.

I don’t understand your comment, “if a parent tells their kid to clean up their "right now", "quickly", or "soon."”, as the instruction isn’t what is going on in the text in question. I mean, when a parent instructs a child to perform a medial task the result isn’t alleviating an oppressive environment. To make your illustration work it would seem better characterized that the child was informing the parent how soon relief would occur, assuming the parent is in dire straights do to the disorder of the room.


To a technical degree, such words are "fair", but do not convey the proper meaning to the reader, and the grammar is also wrong.
Blessings.

How do you determine the proper meaning? Is the same term used in Acts 10:33, 12:7, 17:15, 22:18” to indicate “when” as in now? Kind of like, “don’t beat me dad, I’m going to clean up the room now”?

PaulT

quiet dove
Mar 3rd 2008, 09:35 PM
My lack of understanding grammar in school was so bad, I had a teacher once tell me I would never be able to write a complete sentence...that made sense anyway. :rolleyes:



:lol: Sounds like something my teachers would say to me. This made me laugh. :lol:

Clifton
Mar 3rd 2008, 10:24 PM
Thank you for the translation, but how many English translations read what you suggest is the correct rendering of the Greek text? My point is that you seemingly shift sense from “when” to “how fast” while all the translations I provided you maintain the “when” sense.

Yea, it looked like some where doing that (signifying “when”). But εν ταχει (especially together) refers to a ‘rapidity of motion’. Also, “tαχει” is a noun, not an adverb; As I pointed out in the other thread, from where this thread was shifted from, there are already Greek adverbs for “soon, shortly” (as to “when” which you refer to);

The pocket dictionary (aka Lexicon) provides the meaning as “quickness, speed”.

Note that the verse (as well as Rev. 22:6) does not say, “these things will soon happen quickly.”

Let's look at the Bible In Basic English that came out during the hippie age:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him so that his servants might have knowledge of the things which will quickly take place: and he sent and made it clear by his angel to his servant John; (BBE 1965)

This translation uses the phrase “quickly take place” – “quickly” is an adverb, but this Bible appears to be closer to a paraphrase. Technically speaking, the paraphrase itself is fine. But note, it does not say “things which will soon quickly take place”, so the end-user / reader may or may not properly glean what it says.

Also, it is not me shifting the sense from “when” to “how fast”, but others (perhaps innocently) shifting the sense from ‘rapidity of motion’ to ‘when’ (IOW, a "noun" to an "adverb").


I don’t understand your comment, “if a parent tells their kid to clean up their "right now", "quickly", or "soon."”, as the instruction isn’t what is going on in the text in question. I mean, when a parent instructs a child to perform a medial task the result isn’t alleviating an oppressive environment. To make your illustration work it would seem better characterized that the child was informing the parent how soon relief would occur, assuming the parent is in dire straights do to the disorder of the room.
A parent might say, "you need to get your room cleaned up soon". That's your "when" part. If they say do it right now and quickly, it means do it without delay (IOW, don't sit down on the computer in the process and play in the midst of the duty / command.) Perhaps this was a poor analogy on my part, and I apologize if it was. I was in a hurry to get to the grocery store.;)


How do you determine the proper meaning? Is the same term used in Acts 10:33, 12:7, 17:15, 22:18” to indicate “when” as in now? Kind of like, “don’t beat me dad, I’m going to clean up the room now”? Let’s look at where the exact phrase, "εν ταχει" appears in the Greek New Testaments, and give an English Translation of them. Please don’t forget the Greek εν ;)...

“ "I say to you, He will execute justice for them with quickness. Nevertheless, the Son of Humanity having come, will He find faith on the earth?"” (Luke 18:8 ALT)

“ And look! An angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shined in the prison cell. Then having struck the side of Peter, he raised him up, saying, "Get up with quickness!" And his chains fell off from his hands.” (Acts 12:7 ALT)

“ and I saw Him saying to me, ‘Hurry, and go out with quickness from Jerusalem, because they will not accept your witness about Me.’” (Acts 22:18 ALT)

“ Then indeed Festus answered that Paul is being kept in Caesarea, but that he himself is about to be going out to Caesarea with quickness.” (Acts 25:4 ALT)

“ Now the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet with quickness. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” (Romans 16:20 ALT)

I do not find the phrase, or even the word in Acts 10:33. Nor 17:15, but the adjective form of ταχ is there, ταχιστα…

17:15 So the ones escorting Paul brought him as far as Athens, and having received a command for Silas and Timothy that they should come to him as quickly as possible, they departed. (ALT)

17:15 And they that conducted Paul brought him to Athens: and receiving a commandment to Silas and Timothy to come to him with all speed, they departed. (RWebster-KJV)

I checked 5 Greek New Testaments for 10:33, and did not see the word nor even any form of it. HOWEVER, I have the Codex D (Beazae) in Greek and English, and it appears there, the same phrase and all. So perhaps your English Translation decided to selectively choose Codex D for one or more of it readings to render[?]. Where Codex D has “same verses” as the standard Bible and Greek New Testament do, it has more text for those verses. The text in RED here is the extra text (εν ταχει shows up as extra text), and * means text present in other MSS not here:

10:33 εξαυτης ου[ν] επεμψα προς σε παρακαλων ελθειν προς ημας συ δε καλως εποιησας εν ταχει παραγενομενος νυν δου παντες ημεις ενωπιον σου * * ακουσαι βουλομενοι παρα σου τα προστεταγμενα σοι απο του θεου

Here’s the English I got for that (as best as could be done under the circumstances) - I believe this is by Allan Loder using NIV Text:

10:33 So immediately I sent for you to beseech you to come to us, and it was good of you to come so quickly. Now we are all here before you wanting to hear everything that God has commanded you to tell us."

Do you use one or more Computer Bible Software packages?

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 3rd 2008, 11:10 PM
Yea, it looked like some where doing that (signifying “when”). But εν ταχει (especially together) refers to a ‘rapidity of motion’. Also, “tαχει” is a noun, not an adverb; As I pointed out in the other thread, from where this thread was shifted from, there are already Greek adverbs for “soon, shortly” (as to “when” which you refer to);


The pocket dictionary (aka Lexicon) provides the meaning as “quickness, speed”.

Note that the verse (as well as Rev. 22:6) does not say, “these things will soon happen quickly.”

Let's look at the Bible In Basic English that came out during the hippie age:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him so that his servants might have knowledge of the things which will quickly take place: and he sent and made it clear by his angel to his servant John; (BBE 1965)

This translation uses the phrase “quickly take place” – “quickly” is an adverb, but this Bible appears to be closer to a paraphrase. Technically speaking, the paraphrase itself is fine. But note, it does not say “things which will soon quickly take place”, so the end-user / reader may or may not properly glean what it says.

Also, it is not me shifting the sense from “when” to “how fast”, but others (perhaps innocently) shifting the sense from ‘rapidity of motion’ to ‘when’ (IOW, a "noun" to an "adverb").
Blessings.

I’m still not getting your logic all the translations I provided you indicated “when” and even the translation you provided indicates a “when” by using “quickly take place” as in now or without delay. It seems to me the phrase, “things which will quickly take place” could just as well indicate the quickness or speed in how fast those things or event would come upon one. You are suggesting the translators of these 14 now 15 translations just overlooked a word in the text? BTW, the ESV renders Rev 22:6, “what must soon take place”. Again, how many English translations support your theory?



A parent might say, "you need to get your room cleaned up soon". That's your "when" part. If they say do it right now and quickly, it means do it without delay (IOW, don't sit down on the computer in the process and play in the midst of the duty / command.) Perhaps this was a poor analogy on my part, and I apologize if it was. I was in a hurry to get to the grocery store.

Let’s look at where the exact phrase, "εν ταχει" appears in the Greek New Testaments, and give an English Translation of them. Please don’t forget the Greek εν ...

“ "I say to you, He will execute justice for them with quickness. Nevertheless, the Son of Humanity having come, will He find faith on the earth?"” (Luke 18:8 ALT)

“ And look! An angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shined in the prison cell. Then having struck the side of Peter, he raised him up, saying, "Get up with quickness!" And his chains fell off from his hands.” (Acts 12:7 ALT)

“ and I saw Him saying to me, ‘Hurry, and go out with quickness from Jerusalem, because they will not accept your witness about Me.’” (Acts 22:18 ALT)

“ Then indeed Festus answered that Paul is being kept in Caesarea, but that he himself is about to be going out to Caesarea with quickness.” (Acts 25:4 ALT)

“ Now the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet with quickness. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” (Romans 16:20 ALT)

I do not find the phrase, or even the word in Acts 10:33. Nor 17:15, but the adjective form of ταχ is there, ταχιστα…

17:15 So the ones escorting Paul brought him as far as Athens, and having received a command for Silas and Timothy that they should come to him as quickly as possible, they departed. (ALT)

17:15 And they that conducted Paul brought him to Athens: and receiving a commandment to Silas and Timothy to come to him with all speed, they departed. (RWebster-KJV)
Blessings.

I don’t understand your point, in all the cases above it would seem to me to indicate the concept of “without delay” which would also mean, “when” as in how soon. Again, the phrase used in Rev 1:1 in all the translations I provided conveyed the “when” as in “without delay” or don’t get delayed by sitting first at the computer. No apologies necessary.



I checked 5 Greek New Testaments for 10:33, and did not see the word nor even any form of it. HOWEVER, I have the Codex D (Beazae) in Greek and English, and it appears there, the same phrase and all. So perhaps your English Translation decided to selectively choose Codex D for one or more of it readings to render[?]. Where Codex D has “same verses” as the standard Bible and Greek New Testament do, it has more text for those verses. The text in RED here is the extra text (εν ταχει shows up as extra text), and * means text present in other MSS not here:

10:33 εξαυτης ου[ν] επεμψα προς σε παρακαλων ελθειν προς ημας συ δε καλως εποιησας εν ταχει παραγενομενος νυν δου παντες ημεις ενωπιον σου * * ακουσαι βουλομενοι παρα σου τα προστεταγμενα σοι απο του θεου

Here’s the English I got for that (as best as could be done under the circumstances) - I believe this is by Allan Loder using NIV Text:

10:33 So immediately I sent for you to beseech you to come to us, and it was good of you to come so quickly. Now we are all here before you wanting to hear everything that God has commanded you to tell us."

Do you use one or more Computer Bible Software packages?

Blessings.

Again, I don’t understand your point, Cornelius sends for Peter immediately after the event; Peter responds in coming without delay, the point is it conveys the “when”.

No I don’t have any Bible software programs. Again, I still don’t understand your premise that if the phrase can indicate the concept, “without delay” why you think all those translators got it wrong.

PaulT

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2008, 11:40 PM
I'll be happy to do so as I can - what I don't know off the top of my head, I have more than a arm full of resources of experts to get it from.

As for words having different meanings, like English, that depends upon the context, modifiers like prepositions and other words, and the form of the word. If you read something in English, like a book, newspaper, magazine, etc., you may need to refer to one or more of your English dictionaries to see what that word it means in its context.

I appreciate your input, and from everybody else on this. I am curious as to how people view the "1000" number in Revelation 20 and especially why. Thanks a bunch to all of ya.;)

Blessings.

As in this passage?

Revelation 20

And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.


I use an online lexicon...to give you an example of what I was talking about, I typed in on their search the word 'new' to show you how it does: new (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/search.cgi?word=new&search.x=23&search.y=12&search=Lookup)

I had listed Revelation 20 but it was in regards to the binding of satan for a thousand years. I think this applies to the same time period. We reign with Christ now. He reigns in us. And again the time period is not a literal thousand years. If that the passage you are thinking of?

God bless

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2008, 11:42 PM
:lol: Sounds like something my teachers would say to me. This made me laugh. :lol:

lol we must have had the same cranky teacher! :lol: I wish I had her address so I could write to her and let her see that I can write complete sentences...lol. I think they invented this stuff just to torture small children with...:cool:

Clifton
Mar 4th 2008, 12:37 AM
I’m still not getting your logic all the translations I provided you indicated “when” and even the translation you provided indicates a “when” by using “quickly take place” as in now or without delay. It seems to me the phrase, “things which will quickly take place” could just as well indicate the quickness or speed in how fast those things or event would come upon one. You are suggesting the translators of these 14 now 15 translations just overlooked a word in the text? BTW, the ESV renders Rev 22:6, “what must soon take place”. Again, how many English translations support your theory?

It's not "theory", it is "Koine Greek". As for the understanding of that, there are plenty of Bibles that have come in the present and past for English readers that provide the proper understanding, though depending upon the translation, it may be up to the readers to interpretate the phrase properly;

Let me ask of you, for these three:

(RYLT-NT) A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to show to his servants what things it behooves to come to pass quickly; and he did signify it, having sent through his messenger to his servant John,

(VW) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His servants; things which must happen quickly. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,

(ACV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave him to show his bondmen what must happen quickly. And he signified it, having sent by his agent to his bondman John

So you think when these translations say "pass/happen quickly", you assume it means "when"? After 1900 years?:hmm:

Let us take in account both Greek words and the fact that taxei is a Dative Noun. If a cool car flies by you, do you say it quickly / speedily flew by, or soon / shortly flew by? Are you familiar with the U.S. retired Boxer Mike Tyson? A round with him gave opponents the meaning of "with speed";).
So will a ride in a N.Y. TAXi.:D


I don’t understand your point, in all the cases above it would seem to me to indicate the concept of “without delay” which would also mean, “when” as in how soon. Again, the phrase used in Rev 1:1 in all the translations I provided conveyed the “when” as in “without delay” or don’t get delayed by sitting first at the computer. No apologies necessary. My point is that "en taxei" refers to pace of quickness, rapidity of motion. Why do you seek for it refer to as "when"? A favorite Bible? Don't worry about that. The function of the Gospels provides more than enough on the Gospel Of Christ, why He came the Earth, what He done for us, our belief in Him, and more;

There are over 2000 languages without Bibles (it was about 3000 at the turn of the Century) - if you are a missionary helping these people, what do you want to tell them about since they have no Bible in their language? How about what was called The Memoirs in the 1st and 2nd Century, better now known as The Gospels?


Again, I don’t understand your point, Cornelius sends for Peter immediately after the event; Peter responds in coming without delay, the point is it conveys the “when”.Don't understand this - are you referring to Acts 10? As I said, in the Greek New Testaments, "en taxei" is not there - that is in Codex D and is not used in the currently used Greek New Testaments, and even if it were, that would render the text, "with quickness". Codex D is just another MS which is collated with many others, and other evidence.


No I don’t have any Bible software programs.Would you like one or more FREE Bible Software programs?
See the bottom of post 1555521.
:note:This may open a new window/tab up in your browser.


Again, I still don’t understand your premise that if the phrase can indicate the concept, “without delay” why you think all those translators got it wrong.Not all of them. If you say to someone "get up quickly", that can INCLUDE "when", as in right now, as well as "without delay". As for Bible translations for English readers, let's look at some from the present and past, even for other ethnic groups:

(The Scriptures 1998+) Revelation of יהושע Messiah, which Elohim gave Him to show His servants what has to take place with speed. And He signified it by sending His messenger to His servant Yoḥanan,

(JB2000) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which are convenient to do quickly, and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John,

(Diaglot) A revelation of Jesus Anointed, which gave to him the God, to point out to the bond-servants of himself the things it behooves to have done with speed, and he signified having sent by means of the messenger of himself to the bond-serva

(MRC) A revelation of Yeshua the Messiah, which God gave Him to show to His slaves, things which must occur quickly. And He signified by sending it through His angel to His slave Yochanan,

(Rotherham) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to point out unto his servants the things which must needs come to pass with speed,––and he shewed them by signs, sending through his messenger, unto his servant John;

(LITV) A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves things which must occur quickly. And He signified by sending through His angel to His slave, John,

(MHM) A revelation of Jesus Christ that The God gave to him to show his slaves those things that are bound to occur suddenly. And he showed this revelation by signs sent through his angel to his slave John.
:note: See excerpt of commentary for MHM below.


(EMTV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show His servants the things which must come to pass quickly. And He made it known by sending it through His angel to His servant John,

(Etheridge) THE Revelation of Jeshu Meshiha, which Aloha gave unto him, to show unto his servants the things which must be done speedily; and which he made known, sending by his angel unto his servant Juhanon,

(OJB)


HISGALUS



THE REVELATION


The Hisgalus [Revelation, Appearance, Exposure of what is Nistar (Hidden), Sod (Secret), Raz (Mystery)] of Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua which Hashem gave to him to show to his mesharetim (servants, klei kodesh, ministers) MAH DI LEHEVE (“what will happen,” Dan 2:28f), the things which are destined to take place, and speedily; Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach made it known by sending his malach (angel) to his mesharet (servant, keli kodesh, minister), Yochanan. [AMOS 3:7]

--------------
Except from MHM Commentary (MHMNC):

¹¹ Things that are bound to occur suddenly: Or, quickly, shortly; quickly take place [BAS]. The Greek for “suddenly” here is TAKHEI and may be rendered several ways. Here it means something that occurs with a suddenness, not something that will happen right away. The whole phrase is the same as that at #Daniel 2:28 [LXX]. Whether this is an interpretative paraphrase or just the borrowing of a phrase is left to the reader. The prophetic context of #Daniel 2$ may refer to those matters which occur near the end of the vision. [See notes on Daniel.]
--------------

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 4th 2008, 01:35 AM
As in this passage?

Revelation 20

And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.


Yes, that is the book and chapter I had in mind. There is also 2 Peter 3:8 (a quote from Psalms 90:4) but I did not note it due to the title of the thread, though despite that this is the END-TIMES forum, try to "slip" it in on occasion:D.

That quote of yours, Revelation 20:5a, "But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished." is very good Greek. That is good, yes? Actually, not in the case of this book. It is an interpolation not penned by The Seer. Relax, there are only about 22 of them;) - Upon the works of some of the experts in the present and from the past I have been working on a project called JAP CONSECUTION. It is not the only thing I do in my life, so it is taking some time - plus, the issue of DSS Revelation circulating on the Internet caused me some setbacks, and quite honestly, I haven't been in a great hurry, though, one interpolation in chap. 14 is extremely offensive to Christians that recognize it - once the offensive and affected text is dealt with, things become cool and they can become comforted ;). Not sure at this moment, but I think chap 14 is the worst affected. There is lost text of Revelation too - this is known due to the other contents and prophecy regarding "Parthian Hosts".

I'll post a pre-release on my site soon. It'll be PDF format, however, I will also make the WordPerfect Files available there too, since people have different views and opinions to the Bible Revelation, they may want to edited it for their own personal study (and dare I say it, "tastes");

Thus, since this project deals with the disorder of the Bible Revelation and sets the text straight, your quote is in different places in R. H. Charles' work (which my sequence was his sequence worked out)... 20:1-3 comes after 19:21, then comes, 21:9-22:2, 14-15, 17; 20:4-10 - Etc. I'll stop here to prevent confusion:D. The last 3 chapters are a disaster. R. H. Charles wrote in regards to this:

"The traditional order of the text in these three chapters is intolerably disordered and hopelessly unintelligible. The present editor (RHC) has restored, so far as he can, the order of the text as it left the hand of The Seer"

I use an online lexicon...to give you an example of what I was talking about, I typed in on their search the word 'new' to show you how it does: new (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/search.cgi?word=new&search.x=23&search.y=12&search=Lookup)
Cool. I at times get Kainos (2537) and Neos (3501) mixed up, and have to refer to the lexicons to refresh my memory.


I had listed Revelation 20 but it was in regards to the binding of satan for a thousand years. I think this applies to the same time period. We reign with Christ now. He reigns in us. And again the time period is not a literal thousand years. If that the passage you are thinking of?
God blessWell, I mean the "1000" wherever it appears in Revelation 20.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 4th 2008, 03:22 AM
It's not "theory", it is "Koine Greek". As for the understanding of that, there are plenty of Bibles that have come in the present and past for English readers that provide the proper understanding, though depending upon the translation, it may be up to the readers to interpretate the phrase properly;

Thank you, I’m aware of the “type” of Greek the NT was written it, I believe the translators involved in the translations I provided all understood the NT was written in the common Greek dialect of the day. But the type doesn’t mean your theory of how the text should be translated leading to exegetical understand is correct which means your view is therefore a theory. You do recognize “Koine” Greek doesn’t employ the strict grammar rules of classical Greek, right?




Let me ask of you, for these three:

(RYLT-NT) A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to show to his servants what things it behooves to come to pass quickly; and he did signify it, having sent through his messenger to his servant John,

(VW) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His servants; things which must happen quickly. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,

(ACV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave him to show his bondmen what must happen quickly. And he signified it, having sent by his agent to his bondman John

So you think when these translations say "pass/happen quickly", you assume it means "when"? After 1900 years?
Blessings.

Would you mind writing out the abbreviations, I would like to look up the translations you are offering. That being said, it seems to me the above translations validate the concept of things occurring “without delay” rather than how, when the things finally started to unfold, fast those things would unfold, although I do see how the 1st of the 3 might be taken to mean what you are attempting to derive. What I think the passage is indicating based on now 17 of 18 translations we discussed is that those things in the vision would begin to occur without delay for the audience the letters were originally intended.




Let us take in account both Greek words and the fact that taxei is a Dative Noun. If a cool car flies by you, do you say it quickly / speedily flew by, or soon / shortly flew by? Are you familiar with the U.S. retired Boxer Mike Tyson? A round with him gave opponents the meaning of "with speed" .
So will a ride in a N.Y. TAXi.

My point is that "en taxei" refers to pace of quickness, rapidity of motion. Why do you seek for it refer to as "when"? A favorite Bible? Don't worry about that. The function of the Gospels provides more than enough on the Gospel Of Christ, why He came the Earth, what He done for us, our belief in Him, and more;

There are over 2000 languages without Bibles (it was about 3000 at the turn of the Century) - if you are a missionary helping these people, what do you want to tell them about since they have no Bible in their language? How about what was called The Memoirs in the 1st and 2nd Century, better now known as The Gospels?


The point is the term could be used to indicate how fast Tyson operated inside the ring or how soon he arrived at the ring after leaving the locker room for the beginning of the bout. Early in his career he proceed without delay soon wrecking havoc on his opponent towards the end of his career he would proceed not so quickly delaying the inevitable. The point the translator has to deal with, understanding the flexible nature of the common Greek language of the day is determine what concept the author was intending to leave with his audience.

It is my understanding the word “en taxei” is used adverbabilly in the Septuigant and Joesephus to provide the concept, “without delay”, the same concept all of translations discussed have provided. I’m not seeking for the term to mean anything other that what it was intended to mean by the author. I’m just attempting to understand your logic that suggests you have a greater understanding of the common Greek language and grammar than all the scholars who rendered the phrase to convey a concept you indicate isn’t accurate. I apologize; I don’t understand how your last paragraph carries any bearing on the discussion.



Don't understand this - are you referring to Acts 10? As I said, in the Greek New Testaments, "en taxei" is not there - that is in Codex D and is not used in the currently used Greek New Testaments, and even if it were, that would render the text, "with quickness". Codex D is just another MS which is collated with many others, and other evidence.
Blessings.

Yes, this is what you provided, “10:33 So immediately I sent for you to beseech you to come to us, and it was good of you to come so quickly. Now we are all here before you wanting to hear everything that God has commanded you to tell us." However, it seems to me it is conveying the same concept as in

“Let’s look at where the exact phrase, "εν ταχει" appears in the Greek New Testaments, and give an English Translation of them. Please don’t forget the Greek εν ...

“ "I say to you, He will execute justice for them with quickness. Nevertheless, the Son of Humanity having come, will He find faith on the earth?"” (Luke 18:8 ALT)“ And look! An angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shined in the prison cell. Then having struck the side of Peter, he raised him up, saying, "Get up with quickness!" And his chains fell off from his hands.” (Acts 12:7 ALT)“ and I saw Him saying to me, ‘Hurry, and go out with quickness from Jerusalem, because they will not accept your witness about Me.’” (Acts 22:18 ALT)“ Then indeed Festus answered that Paul is being kept in Caesarea, but that he himself is about to be going out to Caesarea with quickness.” (Acts 25:4 ALT)“ Now the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet with quickness. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” (Romans 16:20 ALT)

I do not find the phrase, or even the word in Acts 10:33. Nor 17:15, but the adjective form of ταχ is there, ταχιστα…

17:15 So the ones escorting Paul brought him as far as Athens, and having received a command for Silas and Timothy that they should come to him as quickly as possible, they departed. (ALT)

17:15 And they that conducted Paul brought him to Athens: and receiving a commandment to Silas and Timothy to come to him with all speed, they departed. (RWebster-KJV)”


That indicate without delay.



Not all of them. If you say to someone "get up quickly", that can INCLUDE "when", as in right now, as well as "without delay".
Are you acknowledging the translation as it appears in those translations I provided is with the range of meaning and grammar of the text? Is the concept, “without” delay within in the meaning of "εν ταχει"?




As for Bible translations for English readers, let's look at some from the present and past, even for other ethnic groups:

(The Scriptures 1998+) Revelation of יהושע Messiah, which Elohim gave Him to show His servants what has to take place with speed. And He signified it by sending His messenger to His servant Yoḥanan,

(JB2000) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which are convenient to do quickly, and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John,

(Diaglot) A revelation of Jesus Anointed, which gave to him the God, to point out to the bond-servants of himself the things it behooves to have done with speed, and he signified having sent by means of the messenger of himself to the bond-serva

(MRC) A revelation of Yeshua the Messiah, which God gave Him to show to His slaves, things which must occur quickly. And He signified by sending it through His angel to His slave Yochanan,

(Rotherham) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to point out unto his servants the things which must needs come to pass with speed,––and he shewed them by signs, sending through his messenger, unto his servant John;

(LITV) A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves things which must occur quickly. And He signified by sending through His angel to His slave, John,

(MHM) A revelation of Jesus Christ that The God gave to him to show his slaves those things that are bound to occur suddenly. And he showed this revelation by signs sent through his angel to his slave John.
See excerpt of commentary for MHM below.


(EMTV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show His servants the things which must come to pass quickly. And He made it known by sending it through His angel to His servant John,

(Etheridge) THE Revelation of Jeshu Meshiha, which Aloha gave unto him, to show unto his servants the things which must be done speedily; and which he made known, sending by his angel unto his servant Juhanon,

(OJB)


HISGALUS




THE REVELATION



The Hisgalus [Revelation, Appearance, Exposure of what is Nistar (Hidden), Sod (Secret), Raz (Mystery)] of Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua which Hashem gave to him to show to his mesharetim (servants, klei kodesh, ministers) MAH DI LEHEVE (“what will happen,” Dan 2:28f), the things which are destined to take place, and speedily; Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach made it known by sending his malach (angel) to his mesharet (servant, keli kodesh, minister), Yochanan. [AMOS 3:7]
Blessings.


I’m unfamiliar with the translations you provided; would you please spell out the abbreviations so that I can look them up?




Except from MHM Commentary (MHMNC):
¹¹ Things that are bound to occur suddenly: Or, quickly, shortly; quickly take place [BAS]. The Greek for “suddenly” here is TAKHEI and may be rendered several ways. Here it means something that occurs with a suddenness, not something that will happen right away. The whole phrase is the same as that at #Daniel 2:28 [LXX]. Whether this is an interpretative paraphrase or just the borrowing of a phrase is left to the reader. The prophetic context of #Daniel 2$ may refer to those matters which occur near the end of the vision. [See notes on Daniel.]
Blessings.

What is the “MHMNC” Commentary? I wonder what the possible other several way’s are there that the phrase may be rendered, and why the commentary suggests it carriers a certain meaning here over one of the other renderings it acknowledges exist? It appears the commentary provides it’s opinion without explaining the basis for that opinion.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 4th 2008, 03:41 PM
Thank you, I’m aware of the “type” of Greek the NT was written it, I believe the translators involved in the translations I provided all understood the NT was written in the common Greek dialect of the day. But the type doesn’t mean your theory of how the text should be translated leading to exegetical understand is correct which means your view is therefore a theory. You do recognize “Koine” Greek doesn’t employ the strict grammar rules of classical Greek, right?
I have avoided saying this, in order as to not “burn out” everyday readers on this board, but I now see you are new here so perhaps they will understand - let me inform you that I have been acquainted with the Koine Greek for about 14 years now, and Hebrew for about 27. I am familiar with the grammar, analytical and the exegetical as well, so therefore there is no “theory” here but pure Koine Greek here and a comparison of the renderings of it for NT and LXX Documents (which I have yet to post). I have more than an arm full of resources and thousands of pages to refer to as well. The “ταχ” stem we learned in the earlier days. As well to “differentiate” those forms of ταχ from adverbs παραχρημα, ευθεως, τανυν, μηκετι, or νυν. It appears that you are gleaning Revelation 1:1 as if παραχρημα or ευθεως was being used, (which, BTW, would require a destruction and construction of different words in the Greek due the formations of sentences), perhaps because of an English Bible Version, or more than one of them, and / or, some theological position(s);

Terms and modifiers like “go now”, “get up now”, etc. would be the “when” part. With εν ταχει, “the process” is to occur “without delay or gaps” in “the process.”

I wish you would let me know “why” this is important to you to better assist me, so perhaps I can better understand you to better my post(s) as well, because for some reason the preposition εν and the fact that ταχει is a Dative Noun, (neither a Nominative, Accusative, Vocative, or Genitive) seems to get lost here. So I will reply to the rest of your questions, but I would prefer to know “why” this appears to be so important to you…:hmm:

Is it for the sake of one or more English Bible versions?
When learning Greek, and studying Greek Dictionaries, issues come up about English translations rendering verses inappropriately, and at times, comparing those to another translation, or other translations that rendered the English appropriately, or at least, in an acceptable manner;

As an example, sometimes “Bible A” may render a verse more properly than “Bible B”, and at other times, vice-verse. We were, nor are, told to toss out the English Bibles in this learning process. After all, there are three primary Greek Text bases used – they are in 85%+ agreement, which is good, but there is that 14%+ percent. The vital and primary message of the Gospel of Christ is maintained in all of them and the Hebrew Scriptures are intact quite well;

This issue of English Bibles Versions "at odds with each other" is nothing new – even this week the issue of the different readings for Hebrews 12:22 came up in another thread in this very forum.

Is it for the sake of a system belief?
Do you follow the system constructed by Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Luis+De+Alcazar+%22&btnG=Google+Search) (1554-1613), or a system derived from that construction, which would put the book of Revelation “as a thing of the past”? If so, and while I do not adhere to that system myself, “εν ταχει” would not be a discussion ‘against’ that system – for those folks, it would mean that the things occurred (past tense in their view) “quickly” – no gap – no delay; but 'was' continuous.

Something else?
Perhaps you can take a little time each week to learn Koine Greek, and come a long way several months later, and can share with others whom have come to trust in your sharing. They can check their resources as well as to what you say. Not to mention, know what many others (foreigners) are reading in their own translations of the Bible, but bear in mind, that since those are different languages, they may not be gleaning verses in the same way English speakers are.;)

I am eager as to the “why” this appears to be important to you...

I’ll be back soon, but not quickly.:D

Blessings.

P.S. The “when” is noted in 1:19 in all three used Greek Text Bases, and in 1:2 of the Byzantine-Majority Greek Text form and the Bibles based on that one. Keep in mind the Revelation is flooded with variant readings and the three text forms do not all agree with each other.;)

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 04:46 PM
Yes, that is the book and chapter I had in mind. There is also 2 Peter 3:8 (a quote from Psalms 90:4) but I did not note it due to the title of the thread, though despite that this is the END-TIMES forum, try to "slip" it in on occasion:D.

That quote of yours, Revelation 20:5a, "But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished." is very good Greek. That is good, yes? Actually, not in the case of this book. It is an interpolation not penned by The Seer. Relax, there are only about 22 of them;) - Upon the works of some of the experts in the present and from the past I have been working on a project called JAP CONSECUTION. It is not the only thing I do in my life, so it is taking some time - plus, the issue of DSS Revelation circulating on the Internet caused me some setbacks, and quite honestly, I haven't been in a great hurry, though, one interpolation in chap. 14 is extremely offensive to Christians that recognize it - once the offensive and affected text is dealt with, things become cool and they can become comforted ;). Not sure at this moment, but I think chap 14 is the worst affected. There is lost text of Revelation too - this is known due to the other contents and prophecy regarding "Parthian Hosts".

I'll post a pre-release on my site soon. It'll be PDF format, however, I will also make the WordPerfect Files available there too, since people have different views and opinions to the Bible Revelation, they may want to edited it for their own personal study (and dare I say it, "tastes");

Thus, since this project deals with the disorder of the Bible Revelation and sets the text straight, your quote is in different places in R. H. Charles' work (which my sequence was his sequence worked out)... 20:1-3 comes after 19:21, then comes, 21:9-22:2, 14-15, 17; 20:4-10 - Etc. I'll stop here to prevent confusion:D. The last 3 chapters are a disaster. R. H. Charles wrote in regards to this:

"The traditional order of the text in these three chapters is intolerably disordered and hopelessly unintelligible. The present editor (RHC) has restored, so far as he can, the order of the text as it left the hand of The Seer"
Cool. I at times get Kainos (2537) and Neos (3501) mixed up, and have to refer to the lexicons to refresh my memory.

Well, I mean the "1000" wherever it appears in Revelation 20.

Blessings.

I knew Revelation was out of order...here is listed the verses you gave in the order you believe they should be in?

Revelation 19:21

21 Their entire army was killed by the sharp sword that came from the mouth of the one riding the white horse. And the vultures all gorged themselves on the dead bodies.

Revelation 20
The Thousand Years
1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven with the key to the bottomless pit[a] and a heavy chain in his hand. 2 He seized the dragon—that old serpent, who is the devil, Satan—and bound him in chains for a thousand years. 3 The angel threw him into the bottomless pit, which he then shut and locked so Satan could not deceive the nations anymore until the thousand years were finished. Afterward he must be released for a little while.

Revelation 21:9-22:2

9 Then one of the seven angels who held the seven bowls containing the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come with me! I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

10 So he took me in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and he showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God. 11 It shone with the glory of God and sparkled like a precious stone—like jasper as clear as crystal. 12 The city wall was broad and high, with twelve gates guarded by twelve angels. And the names of the twelve tribes of Israel were written on the gates. 13 There were three gates on each side—east, north, south, and west. 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were written the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

15 The angel who talked to me held in his hand a gold measuring stick to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. 16 When he measured it, he found it was a square, as wide as it was long. In fact, its length and width and height were each 1,400 miles. 17 Then he measured the walls and found them to be 216 feet thick (according to the human standard used by the angel).

18 The wall was made of jasper, and the city was pure gold, as clear as glass. 19 The wall of the city was built on foundation stones inlaid with twelve precious stones: the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst.

21 The twelve gates were made of pearls—each gate from a single pearl! And the main street was pure gold, as clear as glass.

22 I saw no temple in the city, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon, for the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its light. 24 The nations will walk in its light, and the kings of the world will enter the city in all their glory. 25 Its gates will never be closed at the end of day because there is no night there. 26 And all the nations will bring their glory and honor into the city. 27 Nothing evil will be allowed to enter, nor anyone who practices shameful idolatry and dishonesty—but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Revelation 22

1 Then the angel showed me a river with the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 It flowed down the center of the main street. On each side of the river grew a tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, with a fresh crop each month. The leaves were used for medicine to heal the nations.

Footnotes:

1. Revelation 21:10 Or in spirit.
2. Revelation 21:16 Greek 12,000 stadia [2,220 kilometers].
3. Revelation 21:17 Greek 144 cubits [65 meters].
4. Revelation 21:19 The identification of some of these gemstones is uncertain.
5. Revelation 21:27 Or ceremonially unclean.
6. Revelation 22:2 Or twelve kinds of fruit.


Revelation 22:14-15

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes. They will be permitted to enter through the gates of the city and eat the fruit from the tree of life. 15 Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.

Revelation 22:17

17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” Let anyone who hears this say, “Come.” Let anyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who desires drink freely from the water of life.

Revelation 20:4-10

4 Then I saw thrones, and the people sitting on them had been given the authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony about Jesus and for proclaiming the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his statue, nor accepted his mark on their forehead or their hands. They all came to life again, and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

5 This is the first resurrection. (The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years had ended.) 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. For them the second death holds no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him a thousand years.

The Defeat of Satan
7 When the thousand years come to an end, Satan will be let out of his prison. 8 He will go out to deceive the nations—called Gog and Magog—in every corner of the earth. He will gather them together for battle—a mighty army, as numberless as sand along the seashore. 9 And I saw them as they went up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded God’s people and the beloved city. But fire from heaven came down on the attacking armies and consumed them.

10 Then the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.




Why would this be offensive to Christians? I think it makes more sense. Go ahead and list the other verses...thanks.

God bless

PaulT
Mar 4th 2008, 05:24 PM
I have avoided saying this, in order as to not “burn out” everyday readers on this board, but I now see you are new here so perhaps they will understand - let me inform you that I have been acquainted with the Koine Greek for about 14 years now, and Hebrew for about 27. I am familiar with the grammar, analytical and the exegetical as well, so therefore there is no “theory” here but pure Koine Greek here and a comparison of the renderings of it for NT and LXX Documents
(which I have yet to post). I have more than an arm full of resources and thousands of pages to refer to as well. The “ταχ” stem we learned in the earlier days. As well to “differentiate” those forms of ταχ from adverbs παραχρημα, ευθεως, τανυν, μηκετι, or νυν. It appears that you are gleaning Revelation 1:1 as if παραχρημα orευθεως was being used, (which, BTW, would require a destruction and construction of different words in the Greek due the formations of sentences), perhaps because of an English Bible Version, or more than one of them, and / or, some theological position(s);

Terms and modifiers like “go now”, “get up now”, etc. would be the “when” part. With εν ταχει, “the process” is to occur “without delay or gaps” in “the process.”

I wish you would let me know “why” this is important to you to better assist me, so perhaps I can better understand you to better my post(s) as well, because for some reason the preposition εν and the fact that ταχει is a Dative Noun, (neither a Nominative, Accusative, Vocative, or Genitive) seems to get lost here. So I will reply to the rest of your questions, but I would prefer to know “why” this appears to be so important to you…


Thank you for the explanation, you seemed to make a rather bold statement which was that all the major English translations got it wrong in this particular passage. My question was simply, why do you think the disparate men who at disparate times all rendered the translation wrong. My presupposition is that the men who rendered these various translations that all seemingly provide the same sense of the passage in question were well trained in the original languages and understood the grammatical issues. I don’t think it likely that they all simply dropped a preposition so I want to understand the basis for your claim.




Is it for the sake of one or more English Bible versions?
When learning Greek, and studying Greek Dictionaries, issues come up about English translations rendering verses inappropriately, and at times, comparing those to another translation, or other translations that rendered the English appropriately, or at least, in an acceptable manner;

As an example, sometimes “Bible A” may render a verse more properly than “Bible B”, and at other times, vice-verse. We were, nor are, told to toss out the English Bibles in this learning process. After all, there are three primary Greek Text bases used – they are in 85%+ agreement, which is good, but there is that 14%+ percent. The vital and primary message of the Gospel of Christ is maintained in all of them and the Hebrew Scriptures are intact quite well;

This issue of English Bibles Versions "at odds with each other" is nothing new – even this week the issue of the different readings for Hebrews 12:22 came up in another thread in this very forum.


OK, but this isn’t the issue here. All the major translations that we’ve discussed seem to conquer on the sense of the passage. Although they may use a different word such as soon or shortly they all convey the same meaning as in these things will occur without delay.



Is it for the sake of a system belief?
Do you follow the system constructed by Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Luis+De+Alcazar+%22&btnG=Google+Search) (1554-1613), or a system derived from that construction, which would put the book of Revelation “as a thing of the past”? If so, and while I do not adhere to that system myself, “εν ταχει” would not be a discussion ‘against’ that system – for those folks, it would mean that the things occurred (past tense in their view) “quickly” – no gap – no delay; but 'was' continuous.


I tend to think I follow a belief system created in the 1st Century by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Nevertheless, could the same question be asked of you? Are you suggesting that there is enough variant in the range of meaning from the terms and grammar of the text to allow for different theological perspectives affecting the translation?



Something else?
Perhaps you can take a little time each week to learn Koine Greek, and come a long way several months later, and can share with others whom have come to trust in your sharing. They can check their resources as well as to what you say. Not to mention, know what many others (foreigners) are reading in their own translations of the Bible, but bear in mind, that since those are different languages, they may not be gleaning verses in the same way English speakers are.

I am eager as to the “why” this appears to be important to you...

I’ll be back soon, but not quickly.


Thank you for the recommendation, but why would a back-ground in common Greek afford me a better position to understand the meaning than what was provided by scholars who dedicated their professional career focused on nothing other than understanding the issues at hand? It seems your recommendation presupposes the translations provided are not accurate. Again, the “why” goes to your presupposition, why do you think all the major translations got it wrong? Depending on your frame of reference soon and quickly could very well be synonymous terms.



P.S. The “when” is noted in 1:19 in all three used Greek Text Bases, and in 1:2 of the Byzantine-Majority Greek Text form and the Bibles based on that one. Keep in mind the Revelation is flooded with variant readings and the three text forms do not all agree with each other.

Then seemingly the translation rendered in 1:1, by all the major translations is reinforced in 1:2 and 1:19 although I thought the 3rd “when” was in 1:3.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 4th 2008, 06:37 PM
Would you mind writing out the abbreviations, I would like to look up the translations you are offering.
Due to LINK RULES, I need to first note that all The Bible Translations mention are free downloads for computer Bible software packages (thus, I have obviously excluded ones like NASB, NLT, NIV, and LAMSA {there it is referenced by no links to it}). Obviously, since some of those Bibles can be purchased as hardcopies, some links might show that, but since they can also be downloaded for free, there is no sales pitch here. You wanted sources. I think e-Sword paid for the ESV Royalties themselves.

RYLT-NT is a Revision of the Young’s (also Author of the Young's Analytical Concordance) Literal Translation for the NT Part that came out in 1862-1898 and is very favorable with Computer users with Bible Software packages the past couple of decades, since YLT comes with, or is available for them as a free download;

Example. For YLT and others in my referencing,

The Free Online Bible Software module(s):
http://www.onlinebible.net/bibles4.html
That is Page #4 of 4 pages.

User constructed modules:
http://www.onlinebible.net/user_a-c.html

The Free e-Sword Bible Software modules:
http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html

User constructed modules:
http://www.e-sword.net/usermods/
which is where the RYLT-NT can be downloaded from.

For some, Bible Modules are [also] at the web sites of those companies, Like VW (http://a-voice.org/bible-vw/download.htm), MHM (http://nazarene-friends.org/olb/OlbNC2000.htm), UPDV (http://www.updated.org/download.shtml), WEB/HNV (http://www.worldenglishbible.com/index.html), EMTV (http://www.emtvonline.com/), ALT (http://www.dtl.org/alt/), Just click on the links on their abbreviations in this paragraph to go to their sites.

VW = Voice in the Wilderness – I just noted a 2008 version has been released.

UPDV = Updated Bible Version (extremely strict about substantiated texts in their constructions, but a great “companion”, especially in light of the reconstructed Matthew).

MHM / MHMNC = The texts (http://nazarene-friends.org/get/getnc2000.htm) on which the OLB modules MHM and MHMNC (http://nazarene-friends.org/get/getnc2000.htm) are based consist of a new version, the 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures© [NCMM], as an additional part of Nazarene Commentary 2000-2002©. This rendering by Mark Heber Miller may be considered a literal version with limited paraphrase.

LITV (some people use GLT) = Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, from Sovereign Grace Publishers edited by Jay P. Green, Sr., which also did MKJV, The Hebrew-Greek Interlinear (published also by Hendrickson), KJII, KJV for Children, and as for KJ3 (which is supposed to combine LITV and MKJV), I am not sure whether it is yet released. I have hardcopies of the 1993 Editions of LITV and MKJV as well. I think the computer modules are updates. LITV is very popular with people and is used in forums and groups quite a bit for several years now, as well as back in the BBS Network Conference days.

ACV = The Holy Bible, A Conservative Version;
http://www.stillvoices.org/

JB2000= Jubilee Bible, Russell Stendal, 2000 Version.

The Scriptures 1998+ (also referred to as ISR) = the Institute for Scripture Research:
http://www.isr-messianic.org/
I use this a lot. Like ESV, is used by Hebrews and those with a Hebrew background or acquainted with Hebrew.

Rotherham= The Emphasized Bible by J.B. Rotherham, originally published by Samuel Bagster and Sons in 1902. Downloaded from:
http://www.onlinebible.net/bibles3.html

MRC=Messianic Renewed Covenant, Field Edition
Copyright © 2003-2004
TNN Press
1492 Regal Court
Kissimmee, FL 34744
(407) 933-2002
a division of Outreach Israel Ministries
(www.outreachisrael.net (http://bibleforums.org/www.outreachisrael.net))

Etheridge= J. W. Etheridge English translation of Pe****to New Testament. Note that like that from Lamsa, and as well as that from Murdock, this is from the Hebrew.

Diaglot= 1865 Emphathetic Diaglot NT, downloaded from Online Bible:
http://www.onlinebible.net/bibles2.html
NOTE: This Bible, like NIV, found favoritism with the WT, though nowadays, JWs make more use out of their own translation and NIV.

OJB = Orthodox Jewish Bible, by Artists For Israel (http://www.afii.org/) International Messianic Bible Society.
I have little use of this – I suppose it is an “companion aid” for Hebrew English speakers.

As to RYLT-NT (which I have already provided) versus YLT, here is the YLT:
A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify it , having sent through his messenger to his servant John,
Revelation 1:1 YLT

BTW, speaking of ALT (Analytical-Literal Translation), its site provides a wealth of information. Here’s webpage to the significant variants it has posted for Revelation:
http://www.dtl.org/alt/variants/revelation.htm

Sample:
9:16 MT/ CT: of the armies – TR: of [the] armies
MT: horse – TR/ CT: horsemen
MT: [was] ten thousand [times] ten thousand [i.e. 100 million] – TR: [was] two [times] ten thousand [times] ten thousand [i.e. 200 million] – CT: [was] twenty thousand [times] ten thousand [i.e. 200 million].

MT=Majority Text
TR=Textus Receptus
CT=Critical Text (Alexandrian. May soon be called "Caesarean").

Will catch up hopefully sometime during today.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 4th 2008, 07:12 PM
I knew Revelation was out of order...here is listed the verses you gave in the order you believe they should be in?

Revelation 19:21

21 Their entire army was killed by the sharp sword that came from the mouth of the one riding the white horse. And the vultures all gorged themselves on the dead bodies.

Revelation 20
The Thousand Years
1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven with the key to the bottomless pit[a] and a heavy chain in his hand. 2 He seized the dragon—that old serpent, who is the devil, Satan—and bound him in chains for a thousand years. 3 The angel threw him into the bottomless pit, which he then shut and locked so Satan could not deceive the nations anymore until the thousand years were finished. Afterward he must be released for a little while.

Revelation 21:9-22:2

9 Then one of the seven angels who held the seven bowls containing the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come with me! I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

10 So he took me in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and he showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God. 11 It shone with the glory of God and sparkled like a precious stone—like jasper as clear as crystal. 12 The city wall was broad and high, with twelve gates guarded by twelve angels. And the names of the twelve tribes of Israel were written on the gates. 13 There were three gates on each side—east, north, south, and west. 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were written the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

15 The angel who talked to me held in his hand a gold measuring stick to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. 16 When he measured it, he found it was a square, as wide as it was long. In fact, its length and width and height were each 1,400 miles. 17 Then he measured the walls and found them to be 216 feet thick (according to the human standard used by the angel).

18 The wall was made of jasper, and the city was pure gold, as clear as glass. 19 The wall of the city was built on foundation stones inlaid with twelve precious stones: the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst.

21 The twelve gates were made of pearls—each gate from a single pearl! And the main street was pure gold, as clear as glass.

22 I saw no temple in the city, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon, for the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its light. 24 The nations will walk in its light, and the kings of the world will enter the city in all their glory. 25 Its gates will never be closed at the end of day because there is no night there. 26 And all the nations will bring their glory and honor into the city. 27 Nothing evil will be allowed to enter, nor anyone who practices shameful idolatry and dishonesty—but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Revelation 22

1 Then the angel showed me a river with the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 It flowed down the center of the main street. On each side of the river grew a tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, with a fresh crop each month. The leaves were used for medicine to heal the nations.

Footnotes:

1. Revelation 21:10 Or in spirit.
2. Revelation 21:16 Greek 12,000 stadia [2,220 kilometers].
3. Revelation 21:17 Greek 144 cubits [65 meters].
4. Revelation 21:19 The identification of some of these gemstones is uncertain.
5. Revelation 21:27 Or ceremonially unclean.
6. Revelation 22:2 Or twelve kinds of fruit.


Revelation 22:14-15

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes. They will be permitted to enter through the gates of the city and eat the fruit from the tree of life. 15 Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.

Revelation 22:17

17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” Let anyone who hears this say, “Come.” Let anyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who desires drink freely from the water of life.

Revelation 20:4-10

4 Then I saw thrones, and the people sitting on them had been given the authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony about Jesus and for proclaiming the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his statue, nor accepted his mark on their forehead or their hands. They all came to life again, and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

5 This is the first resurrection. (The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years had ended.) 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. For them the second death holds no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him a thousand years.

The Defeat of Satan
7 When the thousand years come to an end, Satan will be let out of his prison. 8 He will go out to deceive the nations—called Gog and Magog—in every corner of the earth. He will gather them together for battle—a mighty army, as numberless as sand along the seashore. 9 And I saw them as they went up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded God’s people and the beloved city. But fire from heaven came down on the attacking armies and consumed them.

10 Then the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Nice outline.;)


Why would this be offensive to Christians? I think it makes more sense. Go ahead and list the other verses...thanks. As I said, "one interpolation in chap. 14 is extremely offensive to Christians that recognize it - once the offensive and affected text is dealt with, things become cool and they can become comforted", thus, that does not include any of those you quoted.;)

There are 2 offenses in Chap. 14. Let's deal with the primary and most grievous one for now. In 14:14-19, the interpolation of v.15-17 has caused a problem (if we are to assume the one that sat on the cloud is Christ). As the standard text currently stands, either Christ is reduced to a mere angel, AND/OR, another part of the judgment is given to an angel;

Better yet, I’ll provide the endnote I have in my project for 14:15-17, which comes from RHC's (R. H. Charles) work (which BTW, between the 2 Volumes, are over 1000 pages.:():

(14:15-17) is against our author's usage in respect to {sic: Greek} constructions. But it errs still more grievously against the context. The interpolator, failing to recognize "one like a son of man" (14:14) as Christ, has treated Him merely as an angel, and assigned Him only one-half of the Messianic judgment, wherein the judgment is compared to a harvesting of the earth -- a figure not used by our author. But this is not all. He has assigned to "another angel" the Messianic judgment -- i.e., the harvesting of the earth -- the duty expressly attributed by our author to Christ in 19:11-21;

R. H. Charles expressed, in RHC p. Vol. 1, liii-liv of this work: “In 14:14-20, however, the editor {sic: which interpolated v.15-17} reaches the climax of his stupidity. Here by his insertion of the impossible verses, 14:15-17, which he found elsewhere, he has first of all divided the Messianic judgment into two acts, the first of which -- added by him -- is called the harvesting of the earth, 14:15-17, and the second of which is called the harvesting of the earth, 14:18-20. The first is assigned to the Son of Man! And the second and greater part to an angel!;

Thus the Son of Man is treated as an angel -- a conception impossible not only in Jap (John's Apocalypse), but in Jewish and Christian literature as a whole. But our author never speaks of the judgment as a harvesting of the earth, but as a harvesting, and this harvesting is described at length in 19:11-21 and assigned to the Word of God (ο Λογος του Θεου), who "treads the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty" (19:15);

The fact that our editor, in the face of this clear assignment of the entire Messianic judgment -- described as a harvesting of the earth -- to the Son of Man, could assign it to an angel, betrays a depth of stupidity all but incomprehensible, and brands him as an arch heretic of the first century though probably an unconscious one. And the irony of it is that, despite his abysmal stupidity and heresies, he has achieved immortality by securing a covert in the great work which he has done so much to discredit and obscure{2}.

{2}. History has here in part repeated itself; for in the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs (see RHC, Vol. 1, pp. xvi. sq., lvii-lix) for the work of a bitter assailant of the Maccabean priest-kings has gained a place in the heart of a book that was written by an ardent upholder of the earlier members of that dynasty.
* END OF QUOTE *

Thus, here is how it more proper:
Rev 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
Rev 14:18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
Rev 14:19 And [X-the angel-X] HE thrust in His sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

As for the part where an angel is commanding the "one upon the cloud", well, some people don't like it, but I have never been able to accomplish anything to counteract it. Perhaps the Oxyrhynchus Papyri will be able to help somewhere down the road for somebody, or the next generation.

More?:)

Blessings.

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 07:30 PM
Nice outline.;)

As I said, "one interpolation in chap. 14 is extremely offensive to Christians that recognize it - once the offensive and affected text is dealt with, things become cool and they can become comforted", thus, that does not include any of those you quoted.;)

There are 2 offenses in Chap. 14. Let's deal with the primary and most grievous one for now. In 14:14-19, the interpolation of v.15-17 has caused a problem (if we are to assume the one that sat on the cloud is Christ). As the standard text currently stands, either Christ is reduced to a mere angel, AND/OR, another part of the judgment is given to an angel;

Better yet, I’ll provide the endnote I have in my project for 14:15-17, which comes from RHC's (R. H. Charles) work (which BTW, between the 2 Volumes, are over 1000 pages.:():

(14:15-17) is against our author's usage in respect to {sic: Greek} constructions. But it errs still more grievously against the context. The interpolator, failing to recognize "one like a son of man" (14:14) as Christ, has treated Him merely as an angel, and assigned Him only one-half of the Messianic judgment, wherein the judgment is compared to a harvesting of the earth -- a figure not used by our author. But this is not all. He has assigned to "another angel" the Messianic judgment -- i.e., the harvesting of the earth -- the duty expressly attributed by our author to Christ in 19:11-21;

R. H. Charles expressed, in RHC p. Vol. 1, liii-liv of this work: “In 14:14-20, however, the editor {sic: which interpolated v.15-17} reaches the climax of his stupidity. Here by his insertion of the impossible verses, 14:15-17, which he found elsewhere, he has first of all divided the Messianic judgment into two acts, the first of which -- added by him -- is called the harvesting of the earth, 14:15-17, and the second of which is called the harvesting of the earth, 14:18-20. The first is assigned to the Son of Man! And the second and greater part to an angel!;

Thus the Son of Man is treated as an angel -- a conception impossible not only in Jap (John's Apocalypse), but in Jewish and Christian literature as a whole. But our author never speaks of the judgment as a harvesting of the earth, but as a harvesting, and this harvesting is described at length in 19:11-21 and assigned to the Word of God (ο Λογος του Θεου), who "treads the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty" (19:15);

The fact that our editor, in the face of this clear assignment of the entire Messianic judgment -- described as a harvesting of the earth -- to the Son of Man, could assign it to an angel, betrays a depth of stupidity all but incomprehensible, and brands him as an arch heretic of the first century though probably an unconscious one. And the irony of it is that, despite his abysmal stupidity and heresies, he has achieved immortality by securing a covert in the great work which he has done so much to discredit and obscure{2}.

{2}. History has here in part repeated itself; for in the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs (see RHC, Vol. 1, pp. xvi. sq., lvii-lix) for the work of a bitter assailant of the Maccabean priest-kings has gained a place in the heart of a book that was written by an ardent upholder of the earlier members of that dynasty.
* END OF QUOTE *

Thus, here is how it more proper:
Rev 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
Rev 14:18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
Rev 14:19 And [X-the angel-X] HE thrust in His sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

As for the part where an angel is commanding the "one upon the cloud", well, some people don't like it, but I have never been able to accomplish anything to counteract it. Perhaps the Oxyrhynchus Papyri will be able to help somewhere down the road for somebody, or the next generation.

More?:)

Blessings.

Well maybe I am not understanding you here....but I certainly don't see how saying Christ is on the cloud and doing the harvesting could be offensive. There is scripture to back that up anyway.

Matthew 25
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’


Concerning clouds..

Acts 1

9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

Sure...more. :)

God bless

PaulT
Mar 4th 2008, 07:58 PM
Due to LINK RULES, I need to first note that all The Bible Translations mention are free downloads for computer Bible software packages (thus, I have obviously excluded ones like NASB, NLT, NIV, and LAMSA {there it is referenced by no links to it}). Obviously, since some of those Bibles can be purchased as hardcopies, some links might show that, but since they can also be downloaded for free, there is no sales pitch here. You wanted sources. I think e-Sword paid for the ESV Royalties themselves.

RYLT-NT is a Revision of the Young’s (also Author of the Young's Analytical Concordance) Literal Translation for the NT Part that came out in 1862-1898 and is very favorable with Computer users with Bible Software packages the past couple of decades, since YLT comes with, or is available for them as a free download;

Example. For YLT and others in my referencing,

The Free Online Bible Software module(s):
http://www.onlinebible.net/bibles4.html
That is Page #4 of 4 pages.

User constructed modules:
http://www.onlinebible.net/user_a-c.html

The Free e-Sword Bible Software modules:
http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html

User constructed modules:
http://www.e-sword.net/usermods/
which is where the RYLT-NT can be downloaded from.

For some, Bible Modules are [also] at the web sites of those companies, Like VW (http://a-voice.org/bible-vw/download.htm), MHM (http://nazarene-friends.org/olb/OlbNC2000.htm), UPDV (http://www.updated.org/download.shtml), WEB/HNV (http://www.worldenglishbible.com/index.html), EMTV (http://www.emtvonline.com/), ALT (http://www.dtl.org/alt/), Just click on the links on their abbreviations in this paragraph to go to their sites.

VW = Voice in the Wilderness – I just noted a 2008 version has been released.

UPDV = Updated Bible Version (extremely strict about substantiated texts in their constructions, but a great “companion”, especially in light of the reconstructed Matthew).

MHM / MHMNC = The texts (http://nazarene-friends.org/get/getnc2000.htm) on which the OLB modules MHM and MHMNC (http://nazarene-friends.org/get/getnc2000.htm) are based consist of a new version, the 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures© [NCMM], as an additional part of Nazarene Commentary 2000-2002©. This rendering by Mark Heber Miller may be considered a literal version with limited paraphrase.

LITV (some people use GLT) = Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, from Sovereign Grace Publishers edited by Jay P. Green, Sr., which also did MKJV, The Hebrew-Greek Interlinear (published also by Hendrickson), KJII, KJV for Children, and as for KJ3 (which is supposed to combine LITV and MKJV), I am not sure whether it is yet released. I have hardcopies of the 1993 Editions of LITV and MKJV as well. I think the computer modules are updates. LITV is very popular with people and is used in forums and groups quite a bit for several years now, as well as back in the BBS Network Conference days.

ACV = The Holy Bible, A Conservative Version;
http://www.stillvoices.org/

JB2000= Jubilee Bible, Russell Stendal, 2000 Version.

The Scriptures 1998+ (also referred to as ISR) = the Institute for Scripture Research:
http://www.isr-messianic.org/
I use this a lot. Like ESV, is used by Hebrews and those with a Hebrew background or acquainted with Hebrew.

Rotherham= The Emphasized Bible by J.B. Rotherham, originally published by Samuel Bagster and Sons in 1902. Downloaded from:
http://www.onlinebible.net/bibles3.html

MRC=Messianic Renewed Covenant, Field Edition
Copyright © 2003-2004
TNN Press
1492 Regal Court
Kissimmee, FL 34744
(407) 933-2002
a division of Outreach Israel Ministries
(www.outreachisrael.net (http://bibleforums.org/www.outreachisrael.net))

Etheridge= J. W. Etheridge English translation of Pe****to New Testament. Note that like that from Lamsa, and as well as that from Murdock, this is from the Hebrew.

Diaglot= 1865 Emphathetic Diaglot NT, downloaded from Online Bible:
http://www.onlinebible.net/bibles2.html
NOTE: This Bible, like NIV, found favoritism with the WT, though nowadays, JWs make more use out of their own translation and NIV.

OJB = Orthodox Jewish Bible, by Artists For Israel (http://www.afii.org/) International Messianic Bible Society.
I have little use of this – I suppose it is an “companion aid” for Hebrew English speakers.

As to RYLT-NT (which I have already provided) versus YLT, here is the YLT:
A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify it , having sent through his messenger to his servant John,
Revelation 1:1 YLT

BTW, speaking of ALT (Analytical-Literal Translation), its site provides a wealth of information. Here’s webpage to the significant variants it has posted for Revelation:
http://www.dtl.org/alt/variants/revelation.htm

Sample:
9:16 MT/ CT: of the armies – TR: of [the] armies
MT: horse – TR/ CT: horsemen
MT: [was] ten thousand [times] ten thousand [i.e. 100 million] – TR: [was] two [times] ten thousand [times] ten thousand [i.e. 200 million] – CT: [was] twenty thousand [times] ten thousand [i.e. 200 million].

MT=Majority Text
TR=Textus Receptus
CT=Critical Text (Alexandrian. May soon be called "Caesarean").

Will catch up hopefully sometime during today.

Blessings.

Thanks, do you know the qualifications of Jay P Green, owner of Sovereign Grace Publishers to translate the original languages? Do you what what his method of tranlation entailed? Do you know what his theological views are?

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 4th 2008, 08:20 PM
Well maybe I am not understanding you here....but I certainly don't see how saying Christ is on the cloud and doing the harvesting could be offensive. There is scripture to back that up anyway.

Oh me... "Christ is on the cloud and doing the harvesting" is the proper mode, and that is how it goes with the interpolation of 14:15-17 removed. Otherwise, Christ is reduced to a mere angel and/or is assigned to a "second half" of the harvesting - there is no division in it. Am I talking too much?:D With 14:15-17 there, another "half" of the harvesting is assigned to an angel.


Sure...more. :)

God blessI'll get to it.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 4th 2008, 08:59 PM
MHM / MHMNC = The texts (http://nazarene-friends.org/get/getnc2000.htm) on which the OLB modules MHM and MHMNC (http://nazarene-friends.org/get/getnc2000.htm) are based consist of a new version, the 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures© [NCMM], as an additional part of Nazarene Commentary 2000-2002©. This rendering by Mark Heber Miller may be considered a literal version with limited paraphrase.
Blessings.

Were you aware of who Mark Heber Miller is?

http://www.authorsden.com/markhebermiller

Self-Educated? “Like Leonardo DaVinci Mark considers himself self-educated”

Self-educated wouldn’t suggest he has any formal training in understanding the original languages or that he has any qualifications to provide any reliability in the subject. Perhaps this is why the new version disagrees with the vast majority of English translations.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 4th 2008, 09:48 PM
That being said, it seems to me the above translations validate the concept of things occurring “without delay” rather than how, when the things finally started to unfold, fast those things would unfold, although I do see how the 1st of the 3 might be taken to mean what you are attempting to derive. What I think the passage is indicating based on now 17 of 18 translations we discussed is that those things in the vision would begin to occur without delay for the audience the letters were originally intended.

Yes, many of validate the “without delay” (i.e. no gaps in the process mode) of things occurring with speed. I am looking at the Greek of it, so for the most part, I only use English translations to others which align with the Greek, and at other times, don’t, which is the case for Revelation 1:1, 22:6 (and Hebrews 12:18,22 in the other thread). The problem is that when a doctrine or Bible verse is not aligned with the Greek, that can throw us off from what the Greek said.

When looking at EN TAXEI in the Greek, it would make no sense to assume what you are seeing in this verse for the future sense – there is no logic in it, because it would make it sound as if things are to occur before the writer could lift the pen up or finish the sentence, much less the book. Now, in order to convey something that will happen later, that is possible, and would read like “things which soon/later must happen quickly”, which would require the addition of other Greek words – it refers to the process of events itself.

This would not be an issue if you were in Greece. The Greek has been modernized with a larger vocabulary and some changes, but once you learn Koine Greek, the others are eased in learning them.



The point is the term could be used to indicate how fast Tyson operated inside the ring or how soon he arrived at the ring after leaving the locker room for the beginning of the bout. Early in his career he proceed without delay soon wrecking havoc on his opponent towards the end of his career he would proceed not so quickly delaying the inevitable. The point the translator has to deal with, understanding the flexible nature of the common Greek language of the day is determine what concept the author was intending to leave with his audience. My point is that when Tyson swung, he swung at his opponent with speed. Perhaps you inadvertently forgot, but you did not address the analogy of:
If a cool car flies by you, do you say it quickly / speedily flew by, or soon / shortly flew by?

As I have already pointed out, here and where this thread was shifted from, there are already Greek words in re of “Point A: this moment” to “Point B: the defined moment”, where time is an issue. If Point B is to be “with speed”, it is to occur quickly once it starts.

Gotta go fix supper… want some Tyson Chicken?:)

PaulT
Mar 4th 2008, 10:57 PM
Yes, many of validate the “without delay” (i.e. no gaps in the process mode) of things occurring with speed. I am looking at the Greek of it, so for the most part, I only use English translations to others which align with the Greek, and at other times, don’t, which is the case for Revelation 1:1, 22:6 (and Hebrews 12:18,22 in the other thread). The problem is that when a doctrine or Bible verse is not aligned with the Greek, that can throw us off from what the Greek said.


When looking at EN TAXEI in the Greek, it would make no sense to assume what you are seeing in this verse for the future sense – there is no logic in it, because it would make it sound as if things are to occur before the writer could lift the pen up or finish the sentence, much less the book. Now, in order to convey something that will happen later, that is possible, and would read like “things which soon/later must happen quickly”, which would require the addition of other Greek words – it refers to the process of events itself.

This would not be an issue if you were in Greece. The Greek has been modernized with a larger vocabulary and some changes, but once you learn Koine Greek, the others are eased in learning them.


Well most I’m aware of use Scripture to shape the doctrine and not the other way around. I don’t understand your comment about what I’m seeking in the verse, I’m only seeking what the verse meant to the original author. To understand what the author had in mind the historical setting would come into play. If the author was writing to an audience who was under impending danger, in harms way if you will it seems to me that advising help would arrive without delay or soon would make perfect sense. What wouldn’t make sense is to tell his audience who was under immediate and impending threat that relief although he wasn’t sure when it would come, when it came it would unfold quickly.

I presuppose those on the translation committees of all the recognized English translations were/are fully familiar with the vernacular of the common Greek of the 1st Century.



My point is that when Tyson swung, he swung at his opponent with speed. Perhaps you inadvertently forgot, but you did not address the analogy of:
If a cool car flies by you, do you say it quickly / speedily flew by, or soon / shortly flew by?

As I have already pointed out, here and where this thread was shifted from, there are already Greek words in re of “Point A: this moment” to “Point B: the defined moment”, where time is an issue. If Point B is to be “with speed”, it is to occur quickly once it starts.

Gotta go fix supper… want some Tyson Chicken?

I understand your point what I’m suggesting is that the same word can be used to describe how fast a punch is thrown as well as how fast the fighter approached the event. It seems to me, your analogy presupposes a logical fallacy. Motion of the car is a different aspect than when the car will arrive. As I pointed out above your presupposition that the concept “without delay” wouldn’t make sense in the passage is a bias that is guiding your framing of the analogy. The fact the vast majority of recognized translations render the passage “without delay” as in “when” instead of as you suggest, “it is to occur quickly once it starts.”, would suggest the issue was discussing relief to the intended audience because how fast once it started would not be of concern to one in impending danger, what would make sense would be how fast relief would arrive, ie when is the transportation going to get here.

As a matter of fact I think I will be partaking in Tyson’s Chicken as well.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 4th 2008, 11:06 PM
...10 Then the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Go ahead and list the other verses...thanks.

God bless

No endnotes, footnotes, explanations, headings, subheadings, interpolations, MS marginal Glosses, sidebar text here:;)

Chapter XX:

4c-h. And < I saw > the souls of them that had been
beheaded for the witness of Christ,
And for the word of God,
And had not worshiped the beast,
Nor yet his image,

And had not received the mark upon their forehead
And upon their hand;

4a.b.i. And I saw thrones, and they seated themselves thereon,
And judgment was given unto them.
And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand
years.
5b. This is the first resurrection.
6. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first
resurrection:
over these the second death hath no power;

But they shall be priests of God and of Christ,
And shall reign with him a thousand years.

7. And when the thousand years are fulfilled
8. Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall
come forth to deceive the nations which are in the
four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather
them together to the war: the number of whom is as
9. the sand of the sea. And they went up over the
breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the
saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down
10. out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil
that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and
brimstone, where are also the beast and the false
prophet are, and they shall be tormented day and night
for ever and ever.

11. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat
thereon;
And from his face the earth and the heaven fled away,
And no place was found for them.

12. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing
before the throne,
And books were opened: and another book was opened,
which is (the book) of life:
And the dead were judged out of the things written in
the books.
13. And the treasuries gave up the dead which were in
them;
And death and hades gave up the dead which were in
them:
And they were judged every man according to their
works.

14. And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire.
15. And all that were not found written in the book of life
Were cast into the lake of fire.

Chapter XXI.

5a. And they that sat upon the throne said,
4d. The former things have passed away;
5b. Behold, I make all things new.

1. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth;
For the first heaven and the first earth had passed
away;
Nor is there any more sea.

2. And the holy city, New Jerusalem, I saw,
Coming down out of heaven from God,
Made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.

3. And I heard a great voice from the throne saying,

Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men,
And he shall dwell with them,
And they shall be his people,
And he shall be their God.

4a. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;
b. And death shall be no more:
c. Neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor
pain any more,
XXII.3. Neither shall there be any more curse.

And the throne of God and of the Lamb shall
be in it; And his servants shall serve him:
4. And they shall see his face,
And his name shall be on their foreheads.

5. And there shall be no more night,
And they have no need of light of lamp or light
of sun,
For the Lord God shall cause (his face) to shine
upon them:
And they shall reign for ever and ever.

XXI.5c. And He says, Write; for these words are faithful
and true.

6b. I am the Alpha and Omega,
The beginning and the end:
I will give unto him that thirsts of the fountain of the
water of life freely.

7. He that overcomes shall inherit all things,
And I will be his God,
And he shall be my son.

8. But for the craven hearted and unbelieving,
And abominable and murderers,
And fornicators and sorcerers,
And idolaters and all liars -
Their part shall be in the lake that burns with fire
and brimstone:
Which is the second death.

Chapter XXII:

6. And he said unto me, These words are faithful and
true: and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the
prophets, sent his angel to show unto his servants the
7. things which must shortly come to pass. And behold,
I come quickly. Blessed is he that keeps the words
of the prophecy of this book.
18a. To every one that hears I testify the words of the
prophecy of this book.

16. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify these things unto you in the Assemblies:

13. I am the Alpha and the Omega,
The first and the last,
The beginning and the end.

12. Behold, I come quickly;
And my reward is with me,
To render to each man according as his work is.

10. And he says unto me, Seal not up the words of the
prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.

8. And I John am he that heard and saw these things.
And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship
before the feet of the angel which showed me these
things.
9. And he says unto me, See thou do it not:
for I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren
the prophets and of them which keep the words of
this book: worship God.

20. He which testifies these things says,
Yea: I come quickly.
Amen: come, Lord Jesus.

21. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints.
Amen.
=================================

Source(s):

English updated from the English Translation in
“A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Revelation of St. John";
R. H. Charles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._H._Charles), T. & T. Clark, 1920 (2 Volumes).

The English Translation is from pages 386 to 446 in Volume 2.
(Acrobat Page Numbering/Ordering 398 to 458.)

Volume 1
http://www.archive.org/details/acriticalandexeg01charuoft

Volume 2
http://www.archive.org/details/acriticalandexeg02charuoft

This is part of the text I need to check against what I have for the JAP CONSECUTION project, which mostly consists with that of the Public Domain WEB translation.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 5th 2008, 12:30 AM
It is my understanding the word “en taxei” is used adverbabilly in the Septuigant and Joesephus to provide the concept, “without delay”, the same concept all of translations discussed have provided. I’m not seeking for the term to mean anything other that what it was intended to mean by the author. I’m just attempting to understand your logic that suggests you have a greater understanding of the common Greek language and grammar than all the scholars who rendered the phrase to convey a concept you indicate isn’t accurate. I apologize; I don’t understand how your last paragraph carries any bearing on the discussion.

No apology necessary. I refer to scholars, theologians, exegesis, expositors all the time. As I conveyed, when you are learning Greek, you are learning that some English Versions have failed in spots – why? Well, who knows – theological views, biases, doctrines? That is why I have so many multiple resources. I do not have BAGD though, which is over 100 dollars, but I understand that BAGD describes ταχος “speed, quickness, swiftness, haste” ( William F. Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich , A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich )

As for the Septuagint / LXX, here is what we have with the 2 Greek words εν ταχει together:

Deuteronomy11:17 και θυμωθεις οργη κυριος εφ υμιν και συσχη τον ουρανον και ουκ εσται υετος και η γη ου δωσει τον καρπον αυτης και απολεισθε εν ταχει απο της γης της αγαθης ης εδωκεν ο κυριος υμιν
Deuteronomy 11:17 and the Lord be angry with you, and restrain the heaven; and there shall not be rain, and the earth shall not yield its fruit, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land, which the Lord has given you.

Deuteronomy 28:20 εξαποστειλαι κυριος σοι την ενδειαν και την εκλιμιαν και την αναλωσιν επι παντα ου αν επιβαλης την χειρα σου οσα εαν ποιησης εως αν εξολεθρευση σε και εως αν απολεση σε εν ταχει δια τα πονηρα επιτηδευματα σου διοτι εγκατελιπες με
Deuteronomy 28:20 The Lord send upon thee want, and famine, and consumption of all things on which thou shalt put thy hand, until he shall have utterly destroyed thee, and until he shall have consumed thee quickly because of thine evil devices, because thou hast forsaken me.

Joshua8:18 και ειπεν κυριος προς ιησουν εκτεινον την χειρα σου εν τω γαισω τω εν τη χειρι σου επι την πολιν εις γαρ τας χειρας σου παραδεδωκα αυτην και τα ενεδρα εξαναστησονται εν ταχει εκ του τοπου αυτων και εξετεινεν ιησους την χειρα αυτου τον γαισον επι την πολιν
Joshua 8:18 And the Lord said to Joshua, Stretch forth thy hand with the spear that is in thy hand toward the city, for I have delivered it into thy hands; and the liers in wait shall rise up quickly out of their place.

Joshua8:19 και τα ενεδρα εξανεστησαν εν ταχει εκ του τοπου αυτων και εξηλθοσαν οτε εξετεινεν την χειρα και ηλθοσαν επι την πολιν και κατελαβοντο αυτην και σπευσαντες ενεπρησαν την πολιν εν πυρι
Joshua 8:19 And Joshua stretched out his hand [and] his spear toward the city, and the ambuscade rose up quickly out of their place; and they came forth when he stretched out his hand; and they entered into the city, and took it; and they hasted and {1} burnt the city with fire. {1) Or, set it on fire}

1 Samuel 23:22 πορευθητε δη και ετοιμασατε ετι και γνωτε τον τοπον αυτου ου εσται ο πους αυτου εν ταχει εκει ου ειπατε μηποτε πανουργευσηται
1 Samuel 23:22 Go, I pray you, and make preparations yet, and notice his place where his foot shall be, quickly, in that place which ye spoke of, lest by any means he should deal craftily.

Psalms2:12 δραξασθε παιδειας μηποτε οργισθη κυριος και απολεισθε εξ οδου δικαιας οταν εκκαυθη εν ταχει ο θυμος αυτου μακαριοι παντες οι πεποιθοτες επ αυτω
Psalms 2:12 {1} Accept correction, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and ye should perish from the righteous way: whensoever his wrath shall be suddenly kindled, blessed are all they that trust in him. {1) Note.––This rendering or a similar one the Jews maintain}

Ezekiel 29:5 και καταβαλω σε εν ταχει και παντας τους ιχθυας του ποταμου σου επι προσωπον του πεδιου πεση και ου μη συναχθης και ου μη περισταλης τοις θηριοις της γης και τοις πετεινοις του ουρανου δεδωκα σε εις καταβρωμα
Ezekiel 29:5 and I will quickly cast down thee and all the fish of thy river: thou shalt fall on the face of the plain, and shalt by no means be gathered, and shalt not be brought together: I have given thee for food to the wild beasts of the earth and to the fowls of the sky.


Yes, this is what you provided, “10:33 So immediately I sent for you to beseech you to come to us, and it was good of you to come so quickly. Now we are all here before you wanting to hear everything that God has commanded you to tell us." However, it seems to me it is conveying the same concept as in Well, that was someone that provided “some “of the extra out of Codex D by inserting those entries into NIV Text.

BTW, in order to better accommodate our discussion about the Greek in Revelation, which of the following two English Versions do you feel conforms to the Greek Text for Hebrews 11:11?

(NIVUS) By faith Abraham, even though he was past age— and Sarah herself was barren— was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.

(EMTV) By faith Sarah herself also received power for conception of seed, and she bore a child past the normal age, because she regarded Him faithful who had promised.


“Let’s look at where the exact phrase, "εν ταχει" appears in the Greek New Testaments, and give an English Translation of them. Please don’t forget the Greek εν ...

… “ and I saw Him saying to me, ‘[B]Hurry, and go out with quickness from Jerusalem, because they will not accept your witness about Me.’” (Acts 22:18 ALT) … You missed the “Hurry” part, didn’t you? ;)





I do not find the phrase, or even the word in Acts 10:33. Nor 17:15, but the adjective form of ταχ is there, ταχιστα…

17:15 So the ones escorting Paul brought him as far as Athens, and having received a command for Silas and Timothy that they should come to him as quickly as possible, they departed. (ALT)

17:15 And they that conducted Paul brought him to Athens: and receiving a commandment to Silas and Timothy to come to him with all speed, they departed. (RWebster-KJV)” That indicate without delay. Well, we εν ταχει is not in this verse of the Greek New Testaments. Last night I checked Acts 17:15 of Codex D, and it is ASSUMED εν ταχει may have been there. Codex D has holes in this verse – “ταχ” is there.

I believe I already covered the ground of “without delay”, and that represents the process (I believe my Greek Dictionary refers to this as a mode of performance).


Are you acknowledging the translation as it appears in those translations I provided is with the range of meaning and grammar of the text? Is the concept, “without” delay within in the meaning of "εν ταχει"? The word I object to is “soon” – it’s not that the events had already started unfolding, or where about to, but that is not what is conveyed in Revelation 1:1 – DSS Revelation gives no such saying at all in the earlier part of its text, if at all, which appears to be one of the sources used by The Seer. At best, you can object on the basis that The Seer Of Revelation had his own style and syntax of Greek, which is unique – he used Hebrew Idioms that he incorporated into his own processing, as well, as sources from Greek and Hebrew.


I’m unfamiliar with the translations you provided; would you please spell out the abbreviations so that I can look them up? I THINK I got them all in a previous post, but it contained links, so if any links were deemed not appropriate by an admin/facilitator of this board, let me know, and I will PM the link(s) to you… that post would have been better in a PM, perhaps, but it was too large for that.


What is the “MHMNC” Commentary? I wonder what the possible other several way’s are there that the phrase may be rendered, and why the commentary suggests it carriers a certain meaning here over one of the other renderings it acknowledges exist? It appears the commentary provides it’s opinion without explaining the basis for that opinion.
About the only use I REALLY have with commentaries is historical and cross-referencing reasons, and at times, quotations of them if I feel they would be appropriate for the discussion(s). They have their value, but are they “totally” trustworthy? MHMNC references, or notes renderings of translations, that IMO, ought not to. Thus, when they say “there are several way’s that the phrase may be rendered”, they might be influenced by the other English Bible Versions, or, more likely, by the other forms of the ταχ stem. The catch to that in Revelation 1:1, is the governing Greek “εν”, and that ταχει is a Dative - that in itself requires a preceding preposition like "by", "with", "for", etc. - now if it were the form of ταχος or ταχον, (where there would be no "εν") that 'might' make a case for 'soon', depending upon the context.;)

Blessings.

moonglow
Mar 5th 2008, 03:42 AM
Hey thanks Clifton...tomorrow I will reply with something that makes sense...too tired to tonight! Just wanted to thank you for that. :)

God bless

Clifton
Mar 5th 2008, 06:02 PM
Thanks, do you know the qualifications of Jay P Green, owner of Sovereign Grace Publishers to translate the original languages? Do you what what his method of translation entailed? Do you know what his theological views are?

PaulT

Yes, I have been aware a lot about Jay P. Green, Sr. Sovereign Grace, and Christian Literature World since the 1990’s. Last I heard, they ran into financial troubles and were getting things back up. If Jay P. Green, Sr. is still living he be about 90 yrs of age now, or more. I understand that his son, Jay P. Green, Jr. has taken control of the ships there.

In regards to The theological views of Green, he did provide The Hebrew-Greek English Interlinear with Strong’s Numbers above the Hebrew and Greek for users to check (or “confirm”) their with the Dictionaries and Lexicons. This is just another good reason to have multiple resources, though his Interlinear does use the Scriverner Textus Receptus and he is/was a Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority advocate.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 5th 2008, 07:24 PM
Thank you for the explanation, you seemed to make a rather bold statement which was that all the major English translations got it wrong in this particular passage. My question was simply, why do you think the disparate men who at disparate times all rendered the translation wrong. My presupposition is that the men who rendered these various translations that all seemingly provide the same sense of the passage in question were well trained in the original languages and understood the grammatical issues. I don’t think it likely that they all simply dropped a preposition so I want to understand the basis for your claim.

Thank you for the recommendation, but why would a back-ground in common Greek afford me a better position to understand the meaning than what was provided by scholars who dedicated their professional career focused on nothing other than understanding the issues at hand? It seems your recommendation presupposes the translations provided are not accurate. Again, the “why” goes to your presupposition, why do you think all the major translations got it wrong? Depending on your frame of reference soon and quickly could very well be synonymous terms. I do not think that some translations got it wrong, per se, I think it is the interpreting of users that are in error, due to teachings and influence that did not render the English correctly, and that some translations did not render it in a better understanding manner;

Let’s just forget the English translations, and other languages which are based on the Koine Greek, and think of it as me reading only Koine Greek, and that is the only language I know; I will just look at the BYZ (Byzantine-Majority), TR (Textus Receptus), WH (Westcott-Hort), and IGNT(Interlinear TR, Scrivener Edition), and TISC (Tischendorf) Greek New Testaments. Which do you think I should observe if I am reading only Greek?

1 αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη (BYZ)

1 αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη (TR)

1 αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη (WH)

1 αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη (IGNT)

1 αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη (TISC)

Well I’ll be… they are identical for this verse.:P So you see, it won’t make any difference in regards to translations constructed for English readers, be it 100 versus 10, or whatever. I can even get the Strong’s Number and Grammatical Breakdown very easy, say, for BYZ as an example:

αποκαλυψις <602> {N-NSF} ιησου <2424> {N-GSM} χριστου <5547> {N-GSM} ην <3739> {R-ASF} εδωκεν <1325> (5656) {V-AAI-3S} αυτω <846> {P-DSM} ο <3588> {T-NSM} θεος <2316> {N-NSM} δειξαι <1166> (5658) {V-AAN} τοις <3588> {T-DPM} δουλοις <1401> {N-DPM} αυτου <846> {P-GSM} α <3739> {R-APN} δει <1163> (5719) {V-PAI-3S} γενεσθαι <1096> (5635) {V-2ADN} εν <1722> {PREP} ταχει <5034> {N-DSN} και <2532> {CONJ} εσημανεν <4591> (5656) {V-AAI-3S} αποστειλας <649> (5660) {V-AAP-NSM} δια <1223> {PREP} του <3588> {T-GSM} αγγελου <32> {N-GSM} αυτου <846> {P-GSM} τω <3588> {T-DSM} δουλω <1401> {N-DSM} αυτου <846> {P-GSM} ιωαννη <2491> {N-DSM}


OK, but this isn’t the issue here. All the major translations that we’ve discussed seem to conquer on the sense of the passage. Although they may use a different word such as soon or shortly they all convey the same meaning as in these things will occur without delay.
We have already covered that ground – in fact, many of your questions in this post were replied to in my follow-up posts.


I tend to think I follow a belief system created in the 1st Century by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Nevertheless, could the same question be asked of you?
Oh, of course – I keep my head stuck in the 1st Century a lot, and occasionally sift through the later centuries, and poke my head into the current age to learn about new evidence concerning scriptures (of various canons), and of course, the TV is here in the room with me, kept on the news channel, so I can know when the next bad batch of meat or peanut butter is out in the stores :)


Are you suggesting that there is enough variant in the range of meaning from the terms and grammar of the text to allow for different theological perspectives affecting the translation?
In some cases, yes. But in the case of Revelation 1:1, no, because there is no reason to. Some English translators do not have a problem with rendering that verse the way they do because they think of 2 Peter 3:8 (a quote of Psalms 90:4), and / or they are basing their work on another translation (usually RV, KJV, or ASV), and they are simply updating older words with newer words, and looking at variants and differences in the Greek New Testament they are using, as well as other authoritative texts. Revelation 1:1 is not an issue in this case – however, does read different in other ancient versions, such as the Arabic – so remember, that throughout history, other Christians were teaching, hearing, and learning the verse differently than others did. Even with the Greek MSS, this is the case for other verses in the current English New Testaments (e.g. Mark 16:9-20, etc.).


Then seemingly the translation rendered in 1:1, by all the major translations is reinforced in 1:2 and
1:19 although I thought the 3rd “when” was in 1:3. No, but if you are wondering about “when”, you can certainly depend to 1:19 (and 1:2 in the Majority Texts) – it does not grant rights to poke παραχρημα into verse one, and besides, at that rate, there is no need to. I employ the non-popular "historical-contemporary" interpretation to Revelation.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 5th 2008, 07:27 PM
No apology necessary. I refer to scholars, theologians, exegesis, expositors all the time. As I conveyed, when you are learning Greek, you are learning that some English Versions have failed in spots – why? Well, who knows – theological views, biases, doctrines? That is why I have so many multiple resources. I do not have BAGD though, which is over 100 dollars, but I understand that BAGD describes ταχος “speed, quickness, swiftness, haste” ( William F. Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich , A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich )

Blessings.

I understand failure in spots has occurred, the point is that doesn’t seem to be the case with this passage as the majority of translations I’ve provided indicate. I understand Arndt and Gringrich indicate in the prepositional phrase ενταχει the word ταχος is used to convey without delay, at once, “4th Edition, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testatment and Other Early Christian Literature, pgs 814-815.




As for the Septuagint / LXX, here is what we have with the 2 Greek words ενταχει together:
[B]Deuteronomy11:17 και θυμωθεις οργη κυριος εφ υμιν και συσχη τον ουρανον και ουκ εσται υετος και η γη ου δωσει τον καρπον αυτης και απολεισθε ενταχει απο της γης της αγαθης ης εδωκεν ο κυριος υμιν
Deuteronomy 11:17 and the Lord be angry with you, and restrain the heaven; and there shall not be rain, and the earth shall not yield its fruit, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land, which the Lord has given you.

Deuteronomy 28:20 εξαποστειλαι κυριος σοι την ενδειαν και την εκλιμιαν και την αναλωσιν επι παντα ου αν επιβαλης την χειρα σου οσα εαν ποιησης εως αν εξολεθρευση σε και εως αν απολεση σε ενταχει δια τα πονηρα επιτηδευματα σου διοτι εγκατελιπες με
Deuteronomy 28:20 The Lord send upon thee want, and famine, and consumption of all things on which thou shalt put thy hand, until he shall have utterly destroyed thee, and until he shall have consumed thee quickly because of thine evil devices, because thou hast forsaken me.

Joshua8:18 και ειπεν κυριος προς ιησουν εκτεινον την χειρα σου εν τω γαισω τω εν τη χειρι σου επι την πολιν εις γαρ τας χειρας σου παραδεδωκα αυτην και τα ενεδρα εξαναστησονται ενταχει εκ του τοπου αυτων και εξετεινεν ιησους την χειρα αυτου τον γαισον επι την πολιν
Joshua 8:18 And the Lord said to Joshua, Stretch forth thy hand with the spear that is in thy hand toward the city, for I have delivered it into thy hands; and the liers in wait shall rise up quickly out of their place.

Joshua8:19 και τα ενεδρα εξανεστησαν ενταχει εκ του τοπου αυτων και εξηλθοσαν οτε εξετεινεν την χειρα και ηλθοσαν επι την πολιν και κατελαβοντο αυτην και σπευσαντες ενεπρησαν την πολιν εν πυρι
Joshua 8:19 And Joshua stretched out his hand [and] his spear toward the city, and the ambuscade rose up quickly out of their place; and they came forth when he stretched out his hand; and they entered into the city, and took it; and they hasted and {1} burnt the city with fire. {1) Or, set it on fire}

1 Samuel 23:22 πορευθητε δη και ετοιμασατε ετι και γνωτε τον τοπον αυτου ου εσται ο πους αυτου ενταχει εκει ου ειπατε μηποτε πανουργευσηται
1 Samuel 23:22 Go, I pray you, and make preparations yet, and notice his place where his foot shall be, quickly, in that place which ye spoke of, lest by any means he should deal craftily.

Psalms2:12 δραξασθε παιδειας μηποτε οργισθη κυριος και απολεισθε εξ οδου δικαιας οταν εκκαυθη ενταχει ο θυμος αυτου μακαριοι παντες οι πεποιθοτες επ αυτω
Psalms 2:12 {1} Accept correction, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and ye should perish from the righteous way: whensoever his wrath shall be suddenly kindled, blessed are all they that trust in him. {1) Note.––This rendering or a similar one the Jews maintain}

Ezekiel 29:5 και καταβαλω σε ενταχει και παντας τους ιχθυας του ποταμου σου επι προσωπον του πεδιου πεση και ου μη συναχθης και ου μη περισταλης τοις θηριοις της γης και τοις πετεινοις του ουρανου δεδωκα σε εις καταβρωμα
Ezekiel 29:5 and I will quickly cast down thee and all the fish of thy river: thou shalt fall on the face of the plain, and shalt by no means be gathered, and shalt not be brought together: I have given thee for food to the wild beasts of the earth and to the fowls of the sky.
Blessings.

Thanks I think the above passages confirm the oberservation from Arndt and Gingrich I provided, the phrase is used to convey, “at once, without delay”



Well, that was someone that provided “some “of the extra out of Codex D by inserting those entries into NIV Text.

BTW, in order to better accommodate our discussion about the Greek in Revelation, which of the following two English Versions do you feel conforms to the Greek Text for Hebrews 11:11?

(NIVUS) By faith Abraham, even though he was past age— and Sarah herself was barren— was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.

(EMTV) By faith Sarah herself also received power for conception of seed, and she bore a child past the normal age, because she regarded Him faithful who had promised.
Blessings.


I don’t understand the abbreviations, but does this have a ramification on how Rev 1:1 should read?



You missed the “Hurry” part, didn’t you?
Blessings.

I don’t think so using 2 terms to state the same concept for emphasis sake is a common enough practice, the ESV translates the passage, “make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly”. “make haste” and “get out quickly” seem to me to be synonymous concepts.



Well, we εν ταχει is not in this verse of the Greek New Testaments. Last night I checked Acts 17:15 of Codex D, and it is ASSUMED εν ταχει may have been there. Codex D has holes in this verse – “ταχ” is there.

I believe I already covered the ground of “without delay”, and that represents the process (I believe my Greek Dictionary refers to this as a mode of performance).
Blessings.

I don’t understand your point, up above you indicated, “ταχος” refers to “speed, quickness, swiftness, haste” yet here it conveys without delay? I suppose indicating how fast you are going to get somewhere could be considered a process but so what. By informing the audience of the process by which you are coming, wouldn't that also tell them how soon you are coming?



The word I object to is “soon” – it’s not that the events had already started unfolding, or where about to, but that is not what is conveyed in Revelation 1:1 – DSS Revelation gives no such saying at all in the earlier part of its text, if at all, which appears to be one of the sources used by The Seer. At best, you can object on the basis that The Seer Of Revelation had his own style and syntax of Greek, which is unique – he used Hebrew Idioms that he incorporated into his own processing, as well, as sources from Greek and Hebrew.
Blessings.

Ok, so I guess you acknowledge “without delay” is within the range of meanings of the phrase. It would seem to me one could use the word “soon” or “quickly” or “without delay” to communicate the same message when asked how soon will you be coming or when telling someone how soon something would arrive. I don’t think it is unique if the same prepositional phrase is used in the Septuagint and Josephus to convey a similar concept of “without delay”. Again, the vast majority of mainline translations render the passage with the concept that the things shown will soon, shortly, or quickly take place all conveying without delay. It would seem to me as long as the term contains within the range of meanings the concept conveyed and the vast majority of translations render it as such then the burden shifts to you to explain why the translations offered are inferior.

Whether or not the events had started or were to start unfolding isn’t the issue, that question would seem to go to bias, because it is subjective. The issue is what did the author write, who was his audience and what was he attempting to convey. Given the dilemma of the folks he was writing to as indicated in the book, it would seem immediate relief would have been of use, which would go to the why the translators universally conveyed a thought of without delay.



I THINK I got them all in a previous post, but it contained links, so if any links were deemed not appropriate by an admin/facilitator of this board, let me know, and I will PM the link(s) to you… that post would have been better in a PM, perhaps, but it was too large for that.
Blessings.

Thanks, I saw that.


About the only use I REALLY have with commentaries is historical and cross-referencing reasons, and at times, quotations of them if I feel they would be appropriate for the discussion(s). They have their value, but are they “totally” trustworthy? MHMNC references, or notes renderings of translations, that IMO, ought not to. Thus, when they say “there are several way’s that the phrase may be rendered”, they might be influenced by the other English Bible Versions, or, more likely, by the other forms of the ταχ stem. The catch to that in Revelation 1:1, is the governing Greek “εν”, and that ταχει is a Dative - that in itself requires a preceding preposition like "by", "with", "for", etc. - now if it were the form of ταχος or ταχον, (where there would be no "εν") that 'might' make a case for 'soon', depending upon the context. Blessings.

I don’t understand, are you now suggesting the phrase in question does not have within its range of meanings, “without delay”? Have you ever read D.A. Carson’s book exegetical fallacies?

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 5th 2008, 07:53 PM
Hey thanks Clifton...tomorrow I will reply with something that makes sense...too tired to tonight! Just wanted to thank you for that. :)

God bless

Your welcome;)

That English Translation (with some language updates done by me) was OCR scanned from Charles' work by somebody else, so the formatting right now is not so polished and pleasant looking;

However, I have uploaded the whole translation to my domain. Note that this English Translation, which I posted some of yesterday, is stripped of footnotes, interpolations, headings, marginal glossed, sidebar text, and so on. So it is bare-bone text translated by a collation of MSS and other sources, though it appears to coincide with the Tischendorf Greek New Testament quite often;

As for missing interpolations and scribal marginal glosses in this text, that is detailed in the 2 Volumes of Charles' work, and in my Jap Consecution project I've been constructing - but I can respond to those issues here and discuss them.

:note: A Note for Moderators, etc., as well as any or other readers. The source of this text is provided in Message #34 of this thread, as well as in the rear matter of the PDF / WPD files referenced.

Adobe Acrobat Reader format (using plugged into browsers as well)
http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/jap/rhcet.pdf

Compressed ZIP format of WordPerfect Document:
http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/jap/rhcet.zip

Keep in mind that Chapter Numbers are in ROMAN NUMBERS,
"I... V... X, etc.",
and note when a text is restored from another chapter, it will be noted as such, and afterwards, the current roman chapter number will be included. Example, we see here after v.3 in Chapter III., that XVI. 15. (16:15), then returns to III. 3c.

Chapter III.
1. And unto the angel of the Assembly in Sardis
write:
These things says he that hath the seven Spirits of God,
And the seven stars:
I know thy works,
That thou hast a name to live, but art dead.
2. Be watchful, and strengthen the things that remain, (but)
which are ready to die:
For I have found no works of thine fulfilled before my
God.
3. Remember therefore how thou hast received and didst
hear,
And keep (them), and repent.
XVI. 15. Behold, I come as a thief:
Blessed is he that watches, and keeps his
garments,
So that he may not walk naked,
And his shame be seen.
III. 3c. If therefore thou dost not watch
I will come as a thief,

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 5th 2008, 08:11 PM
Were you aware of who Mark Heber Miller is?

http://www.authorsden.com/markhebermiller

Self-Educated? “Like Leonardo DaVinci Mark considers himself self-educated”

Self-educated wouldn’t suggest he has any formal training in understanding the original languages or that he has any qualifications to provide any reliability in the subject. Perhaps this is why the new version disagrees with the vast majority of English translations.

PaulT

That does not mean anything - for thousands of years people are self-educated, though that means they are assisted (or "tutored":P) from others. Self-Education in matters like this depend upon others. Many can depend on the Rosetta Stone teachings before they go to another Country, whether for a visit, or to live there. As I said before, I depend upon multiple resources.

I glean from the web page you provided here, which I read, is that Mark went through a number of bogus systems, and got tired of feeling corncobs. Not quite as bad for me, but I did grow weary of the discrepancies between movements, and I saw things being taking out of context. At times, bringing one to the context does helps ("oh, that verse is in the same chapter", etc.). Being acquainted with Hebrew and Greek does not provide "total protection", but provides "better protection" - iow, "private interpretations" are not totally abolished, but greatly reduced. Which reminds me, you have not gave your belief and why that I ask all users in this thread of whether you believe "1000" in Rev. 20 is literal or not - I'm not debating it here, but just want to see what other people believe about that and why.;)

I do not like the idea that MHMNC conveys other translations - perhaps to show they are not quite right, and / or to show other renderings - but while I have over 50 Bibles, I cannot check them all out, just on occasions when a passage is being studied and / or discussed. I have often checked MHM and have yet to find a problem. In fact, I just checked Hebrews 12:22 and unlike many other English Versions, MHM rendered it appropriately.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 5th 2008, 11:03 PM
That does not mean anything - for thousands of years people are self-educated, though that means they are assisted (or "tutored" ) from others. Self-Education in matters like this depend upon others. Many can depend on the Rosetta Stone teachings before they go to another Country, whether for a visit, or to live there. As I said before, I depend upon multiple resources.

Blessings.

Au contraire, it means a whole lot at least where I’m coming from. No one has validated this guy knows what he is talking about. I understand your point about self taught, but why do we utilize books written by experts in their field. The guy came up with a translation on his own, without any apparent training on the issues at play regarding the original languages and without any guidance other than what he sought out. BTW, formal education has been a part of this process since ancient times. Paul received formal training in understanding the O.T.



I glean from the web page you provided here, which I read, is that Mark went through a number of bogus systems, and got tired of feeling corncobs. Not quite as bad for me, but I did grow weary of the discrepancies between movements, and I saw things being taking out of context. At times, bringing one to the context does helps ("oh, that verse is in the same chapter", etc.). Being acquainted with Hebrew and Greek does not provide "total protection", but provides "better protection" - iow, "private interpretations" are not totally abolished, but greatly reduced. Which reminds me, you have not gave your belief and why that I ask all users in this thread of whether you believe "1000" in Rev. 20 is literal or not - I'm not debating it here, but just want to see what other people believe about that and why.
Blessings.

I don’t know that the term “bogus” is a fair description although it definitely looks like he went off the deep end. The fact he doesn’t subscribe to any of the creeds would tend to indicate the guy is a lose canon. A clear sign that one is going down the wrong path is when they step outside the rather limited definitions of the historic creeds. I think if folks played within the lines of the historic creeds you would find a lot less “private interpretations”, I mean that is why the creeds were developed in the 1st place.

Regarding your question of the 1000 years, I don’t know, I believe all 3 historic millennial views have their merits as well as difficulties.



I do not like the idea that MHMNC conveys other translations - perhaps to show they are not quite right, and / or to show other renderings - but while I have over 50 Bibles, I cannot check them all out, just on occasions when a passage is being studied and / or discussed. I have often checked MHM and have yet to find a problem. In fact, I just checked Hebrews 12:22 and unlike many other English Versions, MHM rendered it appropriately.
Blessings.

Although a bit dated, I would think John Gill’s commentary is more reliable than Miller’s. Given that Miller doesn’t subscribe to the creeds how can you be assured of any of his thoughts?

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 5th 2008, 11:14 PM
Yes, I have been aware a lot about Jay P. Green, Sr. Sovereign Grace, and Christian Literature World since the 1990’s. Last I heard, they ran into financial troubles and were getting things back up. If Jay P. Green, Sr. is still living he be about 90 yrs of age now, or more. I understand that his son, Jay P. Green, Jr. has taken control of the ships there.

In regards to The theological views of Green, he did provide The Hebrew-Greek English Interlinear with Strong’s Numbers above the Hebrew and Greek for users to check (or “confirm”) their with the Dictionaries and Lexicons. This is just another good reason to have multiple resources, though his Interlinear does use the Scriverner Textus Receptus and he is/was a Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority advocate.

Blessings.

Stongs numbes don't convey a theological viewpoint, they just provide a range of meanings that are assoicated with the word. Translation is much more than merely providing the ranges of meanings or definition of the word.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 5th 2008, 11:48 PM
Well most I’m aware of use Scripture to shape the doctrine and not the other way around. I don’t understand your comment about what I’m seeking in the verse, I’m only seeking what the verse meant to the original author.
That is why I provided you not only a literal translation, but an analytical one.


To understand what the author had in mind the historical setting would come into play. If the author was writing to an audience who was under impending danger, in harms way if you will it seems to me that advising help would arrive without delay or soon would make perfect sense. What wouldn’t make sense is to tell his audience who was under immediate and impending threat that relief although he wasn’t sure when it would come, when it came it would unfold quickly.
I don’t follow you here. Christ let us know dangers would come and gave us encouragement to endure, for all time during the time of this world. The Good News generally only traveled by word of mouth (proclamation, preaching, hearing) in the most of 1st Century. The Gospels express that to us, and the disciples, and I mean beyond the original 11 disciples (Emphasis Mine):

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, immersing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the consummation of the age." Matthew 28:19-20 MRC

The “make disciples” is a verb in the IMPERATIVE MOOD, IOW, it is a command, in fact, it is the only IMPERATIVE Verb in this verse, so I am sure there were quite a few disciples for the rest of the century and afterwards – in fact, people usually carried the titles of “disciple” (or “Apostle”) throughout history – including The Seer himself. Now, of course, there is the objection to the validity of this verse, based on the quote by Eusebius and the Hebrew Texts;

"They went on their way to all the nations teaching their message in the power of Christ for he had said to them, 'Go make disciples of all the nations in my name.'" (Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, Chapter 5).

Go: and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever. (Matthew 28:19-20 Shem-Tov Hebrew)
:note: teach them is equivalent to make disciples for the Greek. I do not have the Hebrew Text for Shem-Tov.

By the time that The Seer had addressed the seven assemblies, people were aware of things. Of course, the more voices of encouragement, the better. The Bible Revelation is an encouragement of all times – The Seer used resources of the past and current times tragedies and incorporating them into his texts;

VI. Greek and Hebrew Sources, and their Dates, (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-%20VI.htm)

VII. Books of the O.T., of the Pseudepigrapha, and of the N.T. used by our author. (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-VII.htm)

One was that of the Neronic persecutions, though, (and not to downplay the horrors of it), that was more localized. Later became a more widespread persecution, of Domitian, and even worst beyond that. This has continued in areas throughout history, and continues even today, like China.

So, the “help” you refer to is in the end – since most people do not live past 125 years of age, that is generally the most anyone is going to have to wait.

Also, as for the Bible Revelation, it did not began circulating until around the turn of the Century, if not later. And even afterwards, throughout history, it was a book that was not allowed to be read and was not considered authentic;

Also, there is DSS Revelation (though it be called by various) names which is a very encouraging text, and very much of it underlies the Bible Revelation. If it to be over 100 years before the Bible Revelation (c. 200 – 69 B.C.), and would appear that people had hope and encouragement long before that. With some help, I have done a more up to date of English of that, called Revelation Q (http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/Revelation_Q_Columns.pdf). Someone else filled in some holes and I incorporated some texts of the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls), and put verse parallel (close, or closely related) to the Bible Revelation preceding the text. The sources are listed in the front matter and read matter.

Then of course, there are the vital Hebrew Scriptures. There will always be trials and tribulations in these ages – the Bible Revelation is not the only book in the world. Most people take comfort from Psalms.

Here is an English Blend with a plug-in from the Arabic Version and how they read it, taught it, and heard it (Revelation 1:1):

(1) This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that are to occur with speed, in future ages, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John, (2) who testified to God’s word, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, about everything that he saw, both the things that are and those that must happen after these.


I presuppose those on the translation committees of all the recognized English translations were/are fully familiar with the vernacular of the common Greek of the 1st Century.Sorry, don’t understand your term “recognized English translations” – if you can do English, you can recognize them. I have over 50 and recognize them all.

Later.
------
MRC=Messianic Renewed Covenant

Clifton
Mar 5th 2008, 11:53 PM
Stongs numbes don't convey a theological viewpoint, they just provide a range of meanings that are assoicated with the word. Translation is much more than merely providing the ranges of meanings or definition of the word.

PaulT

I was not talking about Strong's Definitions, but the numbers which make it easier for people to use the Strong's Number to look up the word in their own respective dictionaries and / or lexicons.;)

It looks something like:
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Matthew&chapter=28&verse=19

without the Morphological Codes. I have a different Interlinear for those, but NT only, of course, the computer tools as well.

PaulT
Mar 5th 2008, 11:56 PM
I do not think that some translations got it wrong, per se, I think it is the interpreting of users that are in error, due to teachings and influence that did not render the English correctly, and that some translations did not render it in a better understanding manner;
Blessings.

OK, this goes to my point, their translation of the passage is supported by the range of meanings the words and their combinations convey. My point is that your theory of what is correct is guided by your viewpoint which may or may not be correct, which is why I suggested your viewpoint is a theory of how the text should read. Again, assuming the scholars who rendered the translations just didn’t drop something from the text what is your basis for claiming there is a bias that went into the translation as it appears in those texts you dispute? Are you suggesting the translators all subscribed to Alcazar’s system?



Let’s just forget the English translations, and other languages which are based on the Koine Greek, and think of it as me reading only Koine Greek, and that is the only language I know; I will just look at the BYZ (Byzantine-Majority), TR (Textus Receptus), WH (Westcott-Hort), and IGNT(Interlinear TR, Scrivener Edition), and TISC (Tischendorf) Greek New Testaments. Which do you think I should observe if I am reading only Greek?

1 αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη (BYZ)

1 αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη (TR)

1 αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη (WH)

1 αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη (IGNT)

1 αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη (TISC)

Well I’ll be… they are identical for this verse. So you see, it won’t make any difference in regards to translations constructed for English readers, be it 100 versus 10, or whatever. I can even get the Strong’s Number and Grammatical Breakdown very easy, say, for BYZ as an example:

αποκαλυψις <602> {N-NSF} ιησου <2424> {N-GSM} χριστου <5547> {N-GSM} ην <3739> {R-ASF} εδωκεν <1325> (5656) {V-AAI-3S} αυτω <846> {P-DSM} ο <3588> {T-NSM} θεος <2316> {N-NSM} δειξαι <1166> (5658) {V-AAN} τοις <3588> {T-DPM} δουλοις <1401> {N-DPM} αυτου <846> {P-GSM} α <3739> {R-APN} δει <1163> (5719) {V-PAI-3S} γενεσθαι <1096> (5635) {V-2ADN} εν <1722> {PREP} ταχει <5034> {N-DSN} και <2532> {CONJ} εσημανεν <4591> (5656) {V-AAI-3S} αποστειλας <649> (5660) {V-AAP-NSM} δια <1223> {PREP} του <3588> {T-GSM} αγγελου <32> {N-GSM} αυτου <846> {P-GSM} τω <3588> {T-DSM} δουλω <1401> {N-DSM} αυτου <846> {P-GSM} ιωαννη <2491> {N-DSM}
Blessings.

It’s all Greek to me, what is your point? As I’ve already stated there is more to translation that just word definition. Have you ever read DA Carson’s book, “Exegetical Fallacy” he has an entire chapter on the logical fallacies that result from merely using the definition of a word to render the translation, which is why, not knowing the original language or schooled on all the issues related to proper translation I rely on the work of skilled professionals who didn’t work in isolation to come up with what the words intend to convey.



We have already covered that ground – in fact, many of your questions in this post were replied to in my follow-up posts.
Blessings.

Forgive my obtuseness but save for the suggestion the translators just opted to leave a preposition out, I don’t think you've given me a specific logical reason to support your claim that the majority of recognized mainline translations which render the passage to convey soon or without delay are in error.



Oh, of course – I keep my head stuck in the 1st Century a lot, and occasionally sift through the later centuries, and poke my head into the current age to learn about new evidence concerning scriptures (of various canons), and of course, the TV is here in the room with me, kept on the news channel, so I can know when the next bad batch of meat or peanut butter is out in the stores Blessings.

Then you agree your question has no bearing on the discussion.



In some cases, yes. But in the case of Revelation 1:1, no, because there is no reason to. Some English translators do not have a problem with rendering that verse the way they do because they think of 2 Peter 3:8 (a quote of Psalms 90:4), and / or they are basing their work on another translation (usually RV, KJV, or ASV), and they are simply updating older words with newer words, and looking at variants and differences in the Greek New Testament they are using, as well as other authoritative texts. Revelation 1:1 is not an issue in this case – however, does read different in other ancient versions, such as the Arabic – so remember, that throughout history, other Christians were teaching, hearing, and learning the verse differently than others did. Even with the Greek MSS, this is the case for other verses in the current English New Testaments (e.g. Mark 16:9-20, etc.).
Blessings.

Well if there is no reason why have the majority of recognized mainline translations rendered it thus? Your presupposition that down through the ages folks were hearing the verse differently seems to be problematic, at least as far as this verse goes. Again, I don’t claim a wealth of knowledge in the area but I think the KJV and the ESV are based on 2 different NT texts yet yield the same concept for the verse in question. It would seem if one used 2 Pete 3:8 as guidance for the translation of Rev 1:1, then they are allowing their A Priori to interpret the thought the author was attempting to convey rather than letting the immediate text dictate the thought. If as you say there is no warrant in the text to render the concept of soon, why rely on a passage that may or may not tell one how God tells time? This seemingly would go to show the philosophy of the translator and cause one to wonder what else may or may not have been read into the translation.



No, but if you are wondering about “when”, you can certainly depend to 1:19 (and 1:2 in the Majority Texts) – it does not grant rights to poke παραχρημα into verse one, and besides, at that rate, there is no need to. I employ the non-popular "historical-contemporary" interpretation to Revelation.
Blessings.

1:3 in both the KJV and ESV both convey the thought that the time of fulfillment of the prophecy is at hand or near, which speaks to the “when” as does the “without delay” or “soon” concept of 1:1, which is consistent with 1:19. I’m unaware of anyone poking a word into the context. What is the, “non-popular "historical-contemporary" philosophy?

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 6th 2008, 12:41 AM
That is why I provided you not only a literal translation, but an analytical one.


?



I don’t follow you here. Christ let us know dangers would come and gave us encouragement to endure, for all time during the time of this world. The Good News generally only traveled by word of mouth (proclamation, preaching, hearing) in the most of 1st Century. The Gospels express that to us, and the disciples, and I mean beyond the original 11 disciples (Emphasis Mine):



It seems to me you are comparing an apple and an orange. Granted Scripture provides us general principles and informs us of the issues at hand in the day to day spiritual battle Christians are engaged in but this doesn’t negate the simple fact of the real battle 1st Century Christians were engaged in. The N.T. is the historical record of the battle the 1st Christians encountered and the severe persecution to which they were subjected. The letter was to real churches who as the record in chapter 2 & 3 indicates were under sever and worsening pressure. It would not seem plausible that the author would suggest the they were within tribulation, advise them relief was near and not be serious.



That is why I provided you not only a literal translation, but an analytical one.

I don’t follow you here. Christ let us know dangers would come and gave us encouragement to endure, for all time during the time of this world. The Good News generally only traveled by word of mouth (proclamation, preaching, hearing) in the most of 1st Century. The Gospels express that to us, and the disciples, and I mean beyond the original 11 disciples (Emphasis Mine):

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, immersing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the consummation of the age." Matthew 28:19-20 MRC

The “make disciples” is a verb in the IMPERATIVE MOOD, IOW, it is a command, in fact, it is the only IMPERATIVE Verb in this verse, so I am sure there were quite a few disciples for the rest of the century and afterwards – in fact, people usually carried the titles of “disciple” (or “Apostle”) throughout history – including The Seer himself. Now, of course, there is the objection to the validity of this verse, based on the quote by Eusebius and the Hebrew Texts;

"They went on their way to all the nations teaching their message in the power of Christ for he had said to them, 'Go make disciples of all the nations in my name.'" (Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, Chapter 5).

Go: and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever. (Matthew 28:19-20 Shem-Tov Hebrew)
teach them is equivalent to make disciples for the Greek. I do not have the Hebrew Text for Shem-Tov.


Again, teaching is a universal instruction however not all are under tribulation nor do they have “Jews which are not” in their midst. I think it is Eusebius who likewise records that Christians living in Jerusalem prior to 70AD recalling Christ’s words left and were spared the onslaught.

[quote=Clifton;1562219]
By the time that The Seer had addressed the seven assemblies, people were aware of things. Of course, the more voices of encouragement, the better. The Bible Revelation is an encouragement of all times – The Seer used resources of the past and current times tragedies and incorporating them into his texts;

VI. Greek and Hebrew Sources, and their Dates, (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-%20VI.htm)

VII. Books of the O.T., of the Pseudepigrapha, and of the N.T. used by our author. (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-VII.htm)

One was that of the Neronic persecutions, though, (and not to downplay the horrors of it), that was more localized. Later became a more widespread persecution, of Domitian, and even worst beyond that. This has continued in areas throughout history, and continues even today, like China.

So, the “help” you refer to is in the end – since most people do not live past 125 years of age, that is generally the most anyone is going to have to wait.

Also, as for the Bible Revelation, it did not began circulating until around the turn of the Century, if not later. And even afterwards, throughout history, it was a book that was not allowed to be read and was not considered authentic;

Also, there is DSS Revelation (though it be called by various) names which is a very encouraging text, and very much of it underlies the Bible Revelation. If it to be over 100 years before the Bible Revelation (c. 200 – 69 B.C.), and would appear that people had hope and encouragement long before that. With some help, I have done a more up to date of English of that, called Revelation Q (http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/Revelation_Q_Columns.pdf). Someone else filled in some holes and I incorporated some texts of the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls), and put verse parallel (close, or closely related) to the Bible Revelation preceding the text. The sources are listed in the front matter and read matter.

Then of course, there are the vital Hebrew Scriptures. There will always be trials and tribulations in these ages – the Bible Revelation is not the only book in the world. Most people take comfort from Psalms.

Here is an English Blend with a plug-in from the Arabic Version and how they read it, taught it, and heard it (Revelation 1:1):

(1) This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that are to occur with speed, in future ages, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John, (2) who testified to God’s word, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, about everything that he saw, both the things that are and those that must happen after these.

Later.
------
MRC=Messianic Renewed Covenant

I’m not suggesting that the Word of God is not refuge for the oppressed, but one cannot overlook the fact it was written to real people in real trouble and it clearly indicates that relief is at hand for those folks. According to Eusebius the recognition of Christ’s words was of 1st Century help to Christians living around Jerusalem prior to 70AD. Your dating of the book is a debatable topic. I like your plug, is this an example of, “it does not grant rights to poke παραχρημα into verse one”?



Sorry, don’t understand your term “recognized English translations” – if you can do English, you can recognize them. I have over 50 and recognize them all.

I suppose you have a point,

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 6th 2008, 01:08 AM
I understand your point what I’m suggesting is that the same word can be used to describe how fast a punch is thrown as well as how fast the fighter approached the event. It seems to me, your analogy presupposes a logical fallacy.

Not actually. I’ve aided others in Hebrew and Greek in various Countries since the early 1990’s – still yet, nothing you have said, or can say, changes the fact that the Greek “taxei” is a DATIVE NOUN and further governed by the Greek preposition “en”, and παραχρημα is not there either. Do you know of any supporting MS, etc. to say otherwise?


Motion of the car is a different aspect than when the car will arrive. Thank you for the response. I said nothing about a car “arriving”, but “went by” with speed – quickly – suddenly; it did not stop. For that example, we do not say the car went by ‘soon’ or ‘shortly’.


As I pointed out above your presupposition that the concept “without delay” wouldn’t make sense in the passage is a bias that is guiding your framing of the analogy. See first paragraph. No bias here on my part – it was the language of the Greeks for 700+ years.

The fact the vast majority of recognized translations render the passage “without delay” as in “when” instead of as you suggest, “it is to occur quickly once it starts.”, would suggest the issue was discussing relief to the intended audience because how fast once it started would not be of concern to one in impending danger, what would make sense would be how fast relief would arrive, ie when is the transportation going to get here.

There’s that term “recognized translations” again. Never heard of such a term. Now, the term might go with some confined to a certain organization, though it thought the terminology there was “approved translations”.

As to the rest of your paragraph, that ground has already been covered.


As a matter of fact I think I will be partaking in Tyson’s Chicken as well. Good isn’t it? Especially with bread and butter :P

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 6th 2008, 01:59 AM
I was not talking about Strong's Definitions, but the numbers which make it easier for people to use the Strong's Number to look up the word in their own respective dictionaries and / or lexicons.;)

It looks something like:
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Matthew&chapter=28&verse=19

without the Morphological Codes. I have a different Interlinear for those, but NT only, of course, the computer tools as well.

The point still applies, the definiton of the word or range of meaning is only one aspect of the translation.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 6th 2008, 02:38 AM
Not actually. I’ve aided others in Hebrew and Greek in various Countries since the early 1990’s – still yet, nothing you have said, or can say, changes the fact that the Greek “taxei” is a DATIVE NOUN and further governed by the Greek preposition “en”, and παραχρημα is not there either. Do you know of any supporting MS, etc. to say otherwise?

Blessings.

I’m having a hard time following you, but didn’t we already agree that the prepositional phrase, “en taxei” used adverbially conveys the meaning of “without delay”? Again, how does arguing the noun is limited to one range of its meaning, something you appear to be suggesting, not a logical fallacy?



Thank you for the response. I said nothing about a car “arriving”, but “went by” with speed – quickly – suddenly; it did not stop. For that example, we do not say the car went by ‘soon’ or ‘shortly’.
Blessings.

My point was your restriction as to the aspect of the meaning of the word is the logical fallacy. I didn’t say you said anything about arriving; my illustration was merely to point out the broader range of the meaning. Your restriction on the meaning seems to me to be a fallacy, a subject that appears to me to be covered on pg 57 of DA Carson’s book “Exegetical Fallacies” where he deals with a subject entitled, “unwarranted restriction of the semantic field”.



See first paragraph. No bias here on my part – it was the language of the Greeks for 700+ years. .

Nah, not at all, you know how the Greek’s phrased stuff, in fact you appear to have a better take than scholars who claim they are still learning the subject.



The fact the vast majority of recognized translations render the passage “without delay” as in “when” instead of as you suggest, “it is to occur quickly once it starts.”, would suggest the issue was discussing relief to the intended audience because how fast once it started would not be of concern to one in impending danger, what would make sense would be how fast relief would arrive, ie when is the transportation going to get here.



There’s that term “recognized translations” again. Never heard of such a term. Now, the term might go with some confined to a certain organization, though it thought the terminology there was “approved translations”.

As to the rest of your paragraph, that ground has already been covered.
.

If the argument was answered I missed it. Again, have you ever read D.A. Carson’s book?



Good isn’t it? Especially with bread and butter
Blessings.
Truly, we used a new marinade of a new to us discovered recipe. The chicken was excellent.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 6th 2008, 02:43 AM
I understand failure in spots has occurred, the point is that doesn’t seem to be the case with this passage as the majority of translations I’ve provided indicate. I understand Arndt and Gringrich indicate in the prepositional phrase εν ταχει the word ταχος is used to convey without delay, at once, “4th Edition, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testatment and Other Early Christian Literature, pgs 814-815.
I have two sources by Zodhiates and AMG International, which are works are of those that are Greek with over 50 years of experience with their ancestral language. I have TDNT, TWOT, VINES, BDB, STRONG’S as well, and of course, my Greek Education Book. I would like to have BAGD, but it costs over 100 dollars which I cannot afford – I have seen previews of it, and at best, all it could provide for me is a convenience off of the computer, and I can make due without it – IOW, still learn all that is in BAGD – but I will confess, I would still like to have it, because I like multiple sources to balance out things and sift out any ‘theological’ views that might be confined to the editors, contributors, and authors of all of them I guess (you might be because the person's theology stance is not correct at times). I understand BAGD is German, but that is not an issue – at least to me.


Thanks I think the above passages confirm the oberservation from Arndt and Gingrich I provided, the phrase is used to convey, “at once, without delay”
Yea, once the process starts. You are still confusing εν ταχει with παραχρημα <3916 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3916)> and not acknowledging the ταχει is a DATIVE CASE NOUN and has the preposition εν. If you would just understand this, then you would understand BAGD, (as well as BDAG, 992-993), and the lexicon readings, (though they be just pocket dictionaries), dictionaries, etc.;

Also, BDAG refers to ταχος itself, and that is the nominative case for it, though a dictionary / lexicon uses that to account for other declensions and cases of the the same noun, when it comes to a Genitive Case or Dative Case, there needs to be supplied words, PLUS, we have the Greek Preposition εν here, thus, the formation comes into account. For Genitive Cases ("of"), English has one-word pronouns for some of those - e.g. "him" for "of his".

Are you short on Computer Diskspace, and unable to download one or more of the Bible Software packages I gave you the links to? If so, you can reap some benefits online at:
http://net.bible.org (http://net.bible.org/)




Originally Posted by Clifton
Well, that was someone that provided “some “of the extra out of Codex D by inserting those entries into NIV Text.

BTW, in order to better accommodate our discussion about the Greek in Revelation, which of the following two English Versions do you feel conforms to the Greek Text for Hebrews 11:11?

(NIVUS) By faith Abraham, even though he was past age— and Sarah herself was barren— was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.

(EMTV) By faith Sarah herself also received power for conception of seed, and she bore a child past the normal age, because she regarded Him faithful who had promised.
Blessings.I don’t understand the abbreviations, but does this have a ramification on how Rev 1:1 should read? NIVUS = New International Version – United States
EMTV = English Majority Text Version
You speak of how Bibles render things – the question is, which version here do you feel conforms to the Greek Text for Hebrews 11:11? NIV, the popular selling one, or EMTV?




Originally Posted by Clifton
You missed the “Hurry” part, didn’t you?
Blessings.

I don’t think so using 2 terms to state the same concept for emphasis sake is a common enough practice, the ESV translates the passage, “make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly”. “make haste” and “get out quickly” seem to me to be synonymous concepts. The ESV (at least the newest version) is good – I’ve read some complaints about the older version (the one I have, I guess). The terms were not synonymous otherwise they would not be there because they would be redundant - not a quality with GNTs (Greek New Testaments).
Later.

Clifton
Mar 6th 2008, 03:20 AM
Sure...more. :)

God bless
Well, I will address the other issue for Chapter 14, which is the Editor's interpolation in the end of v.3 and the beginning of v.4, and its impact on innocent saints. It is that "guys, keep it in your britches" clause:lol:;

Apparently, this arch-heretic Editor that made this interpolation was a celibate and had blended in some pagan philosophies;

Here is an extraction from my appendix, as derived from the aforementioned in previous post(s), R.H. Charles (at least):
(14:3e-4ab) Another interpolation due to this editor is 14:3e-4ab. If these clauses are from his pen they help us to recognize another trait in his character. He is a narrow ascetic, and introduces into Christianity ideas that had their origin in pagan faiths of unquestionable impurity. According to the teaching of 14:3e-4ab, neither St. Peter nor any other married apostle nor any woman whatever would be allowed to follow the Lamb on Mt. Zion. But it is chastity not celibacy that is a Christian virtue. To regard marriage as a pollution is impossible in our author (The Seer, John), who compares the covenant between Christ and the Church to a marriage, 19:9, and calls the Church the Bride, 21:2.9 22:17.
*** END OF QUOTE ***
So cleaning it up without the pagan celibacy business, we have:

Chapter 14
(3a-d) They sing a new song before the throne, and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the one hundred forty-four thousand. (4c-e) These are those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These were redeemed by Jesus from among men, the first fruits to God and to the Lamb. (5) In their mouth was found no lie, for they are blameless. (Note: TR (Textus Receptus), and Bibles based on that, has additionally, “before the throne of God”, here at the end of this verse).

So, for the most part, we have dealt with Chapter 14.

8:7-12 is the only major section that was introduced by the interpolator, however, we have material now (DSS Revelation) that came to light after Charles' work. The interpolation of 8:7-12 appears, with some modifications, to have come from there (DSS Revelation) as a source/providence. Of course, a lot of the Bible Revelation appears to come from there.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 6th 2008, 03:20 AM
I have two sources by Zodhiates and AMG International, which are works are of those that are Greek with over 50 years of experience with their ancestral language. I have TDNT, TWOT, VINES, BDB, STRONG’S as well, and of course, my Greek Education Book. I would like to have BAGD, but it costs over 100 dollars which I cannot afford – I have seen previews of it, and at best, all it could provide for me is a convenience off of the computer, and I can make due without it – IOW, still learn all that is in BAGD – but I will confess, I would still like to have it, because I like multiple sources to balance out things and sift out any ‘theological’ views that might be confined to the editors, contributors, and authors of all of them I guess (you might be because the person's theology stance is not correct at times). I understand BAGD is German, but that is not an issue – at least to me.

I don’t think Zodhiates is very reliable, I understand he applies “Classical” rules to the “common” Greek, which maybe the cause of some the apparent issues. I think his 50 years experience is do to the fact he was born and raised in Greece. I seen some of his work and the fact he is a dispensational premillennialist is clearly evident in his stuff.

Does Zodhiates give you any indication why say the KJV and ESV both translate the passage different than he suggests?




Yea, once the process starts. You are still confusing εν ταχει with παραχρημα <3916 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3916)> and not acknowledging the ταχει is a DATIVE CASE NOUN and has the preposition εν. If you would just understand this, then you would understand BAGD, (as well as BDAG, 992-993), and the lexicon readings, (though they be just pocket dictionaries), dictionaries, etc.;

Also, BDAG refers to ταχος itself, and that is the nominative case for it, though a dictionary / lexicon uses that to account for other declensions and cases of the the same noun, when it comes to a Genitive Case or Dative Case, there needs to be supplied words, PLUS, we have the Greek Preposition εν here, thus, the formation comes into account. For Genitive Cases ("of"), English has one-word pronouns for some of those - e.g. "him" for "of his".


I believe I’ve limited my comments to, “εν ταχει” which according to Arndt & Gringrich, as a prepositional phrase is used adverbially to convey “without delay” in the Septuagint and writings of Josephus.




Are you short on Computer Diskspace, and unable to download one or more of the Bible Software packages I gave you the links to? If so, you can reap some benefits online at:


I don’t own the computer I’m communicating to you on, and they have strict rules about what I can and cannot put on the hard-drive. Thanks for the link, I will look through the site.



NIVUS = New International Version – United States
EMTV = English Majority Text Version
You speak of how Bibles render things – the question is, which version here do you feel conforms to the Greek Text for Hebrews 11:11? NIV, the popular selling one, or EMTV?

The ESV (at least the newest version) is good – I’ve read some complaints about the older version (the one I have, I guess). The terms were not synonymous otherwise they would not be there because they would be redundant - not a quality with GNTs (Greek New Testaments).
Later.

Heb 11:11, I have the KJV, ESV and NASB in my office; they all indicate the same thing for the verse. Looks like they all do. Redundancy as a point of emphasis is often used. Have you never heard the phrase tell them want you want them to hear, then tell it to them again so the understand. Next time you get a chance head over to your local ball field and listen to the coach talking to his players, I’m pretty sure you will hear him tell the players the same thing repeatedly using a few different words or phrases that are synonymous. The passage you used in question would have fit this scenario perfectly, they were running for their lives.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 6th 2008, 03:50 AM
I believe it is an extended period of time, as Jesus rules eternally (Luke 1:33).:D

Appreciate your input of your thoughts on the "1000" years part of Rev. 20. I am curious as to feel what people think it means and why. The Greek Dictionary gives no one option.

I guess I should have created a different thread for the question - oh well, things seem to be repetitive here (nothing new under the sun:D), so perhaps I can do it somewhere down the road here.

Keep on shining ever so brightly!:)

Clifton
Mar 6th 2008, 04:38 PM
I don’t understand your point, up above you indicated, “ταχος” refers to “speed, quickness, swiftness, haste” yet here it conveys without delay? I suppose indicating how fast you are going to get somewhere could be considered a process but so what. By informing the audience of the process by which you are coming, wouldn't that also tell them how soon you are coming?

Just whom do you think the “audience” is? “ταχος” is a Nominative Noun. As I have expressed more than once, there in Revelation 1:1 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Revelation&chapter=1&verse=1), it is more than just the one word, it is two words formed together, and the phrase of that formation is εν (PREPOSITION) ταχει (DATIVE CASE). It appears you feel The Seer implies things happen “Without delay” before he reached the end of his work, where the same expression is used – and considering the resources, external, and internal evidence, the process of these pages on scrolls occurred over a very long time - we note that in two occasions, he goes into a vision. Then there are the 7 letters, which, unless he made one or more copies and sent them out, they did not reach the congregations until the late 1st or 2nd Century (Laodiceans rejected the texts in 177 A.D. due to the “lukewarm” comments, etc.)

Since you are on the job when accessing the internet (I looked ahead of the posts and saw you make mention of it), I will attempt to reduces the sizes of the replies and put them into individual posts.;)


...wouldn't that also tell them how soon you are comingNot with εν (PREPOSITION) ταχει (DATIVE CASE) in this case. In some of the letters to the congregations, according to the text, Christ warns some that IF they do no repent, He will come upon them with quickness (a term that can be used like "suddenly out of the blue"). Thus, IF they repented, they could avoid those "comings".

Later.

Clifton
Mar 6th 2008, 05:49 PM
Ok, so I guess you acknowledge “without delay” is within the range of meanings of the phrase. It would seem to me one could use the word “soon” or “quickly” or “without delay” to communicate the same message when asked how soon will you be coming or when telling someone how soon something would arrive. I don’t think it is unique if the same prepositional phrase is used in the Septuagint and Josephus to convey a similar concept of “without delay”. Again, the vast majority of mainline translations render the passage with the concept that the things shown will soon, shortly, or quickly take place all conveying without delay. It would seem to me as long as the term contains within the range of meanings the concept conveyed and the vast majority of translations render it as such then the burden shifts to you to explain why the translations offered are inferior. Not all of them as I have already pointed out. You just got to perceive it correctly according to the context and Greek. The fact that some translations, even NET, use the word “soon” without accounting for the preposition is because of the very reason they will give you if you ask them about it – like Wilbur Pickering – they will quote 2 Peter 3:8 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=2Peter&chapter=3&verse=8) and Psalms 90:4 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psalms&chapter=90&verse=4), and say, well “it has not even been “2 days yet” – by your view, there has been almost a 2 day “delay” so far. As for the Septuagint, I have already addressed that. You view it as if it is using another Greek word, or words.


Whether or not the events had started or were to start unfolding isn’t the issue,Some of the events of the sources used has already unfolded and were of the past – those sources were incorporated for Christians of the future. Take Chapter 12 for example,

XII. This chapter is retrospective. Its object is to give the reader insight into the past in order to prepare him for the crowning evil the climax of Satan's power upon earth. But this crowning evil is not, really a sign of his growing power, but the closing stage of a war in heaven, which had already terminated in the vindication of God’s sovereignty, and the hurling down of Satan to earth. Hence, however, Satan and his minions, the Roman and heathen powers, may rage, but it is but the last struggle of a beaten foe, whose malignity is all the greater, since he knows that his time is short. The vision goes back before the birth of Christ, and tells with mythological coloring how Satan sought to destroy Christ (sic: thus, Mary fled to Egypt for a period of time as she was instructed to do), and, after His ascension, the Church itself. In setting forth his theme The Seer has borrowed the main part of this chapter from Jewish sources, which had in turn been derived from international sources, and has adapted them though not wholly to their new and Christian setting. The closing verses, 14-16, were written before 70 A.D., and cannot be interpreted in detail of the crises of 95 A.D., when The Seer wrote. See “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Revelation of St. John”; R. H. Charles, T. & T. Clark, 1920, Vol. I. 299, 331 sq. For a summary of the chapter, see Vol. I. 298 sq.

Thus, Chapter 12 (at least the first part of it) prepares for the upcoming text that follows.


that question would seem to go to bias, because it is subjective.Sounds like IMO versus IMO versus IMO versus IMO to me. :)


The issue is what did the author write, who was his audience and what was he attempting to convey. Given the dilemma of the folks he was writing to as indicated in the book, it would seem immediate relief would have been of use, which would go to the why the translators universally conveyed a thought of without delay. We Christians of the past, present, and future are the “audience” (if I am guessing your term correctly, and you mean readers of the text). The documents in Revelation are spread out over decades, and “the sources” (which I gave you two links to review in post #44 within this thread) are anywhere from the time of Moses (maybe even as earlier as the family of Adam and Eve) on up to the mid 90’s A.D. - So I do not know if your term “dilemma” is singular or plural. I would recommend it to be plural, for the text relates struggles of the past, present, and “continuing” struggles for Christians until the next main Advent of Christ.

I do not concur that “the translators universally conveyed a thought of without delay”, especially in other languages and countries, since by the English point-of-view, their has been almost a “2-day delay” (by their referencing 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4) so far.

As for the spread of persecution, be it individualized, localized or wide-spread, consider the more localized Neronic times, and the more wide-spread Domitian, then the even worst, which is referred to as The GREAT Persecution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians) (I believe that even holy books were burned) of Christians in the 3rd Century – aka “The Diocletian Persecution”, and worst in the 20th Century – it gets worst and worst, until there will be a world-wide one;

… sometimes it is individualized too;

"'I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas <493 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=493)> my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. Revelation 2:13 ESV
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Revelation&chapter=2&verse=13

During the time of Antipas (referred to as the proto-martyr of Revelation) as bishop, 83 A.D. until his martyrization, April 11. 92 A.D., as traditions has it, there was not a spread of Christian Persecution. Though, other martyrs followed him at Pergamum (Agathonice, Attalus, Carpus, Polybus).

You can access info for Antipas at:

http://latter-rain.com/escha/antipas.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipas_of_Pergamum

There are other sites as well.

Do you have this idea that The Seer was only addressing the upcoming Domitian persecution, and not the worst ones later, e.g. The Diocletian Persecution? The Verb of Revelation does not concur. Did those of The Diocletian Persecution, Russian Persecution have hope and relief, or even the more localized ones, like of Neron and in times afterwards?

Later.

Clifton
Mar 6th 2008, 09:32 PM
I don’t understand, are you now suggesting the phrase in question does not have within its range of meanings, “without delay”?

Not in the manner you convey it. However, it does not mean one can stop to eat and use the restroom as necessary :) Actually, the form you are looking for “without delay” is ταχυ <5035 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5035)> {Adverb} – one of the words used for it is “lightly”.


Have you ever read D.A. Carson’s book exegetical fallacies?

No, and nor would I. I can tell by the statement that someone’s ideas do align up with the underlying languages of the scriptures, just like those whom say you are not being guided by the HS (something people from the 2 Churches across the street from each other would say to each other {re: correct/change the Greek, etc.}). I’ve been in the Modem world over 15 years – the term “fallacies” (a word used by Atheist for us believers in YHWH) is usually always often used by those whose ideologies are not aligned with the underlying languages of the scriptures, the idioms, and related history, if fact, I do not ever recall seeing otherwise – those of us that stick to the original languages use terms like delusions and fantasy – but here, usually the term “non-Biblical”.


Should have bought a book to learn to Greek instead of Carson.;)


Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 6th 2008, 10:06 PM
Au contraire, it means a whole lot at least where I’m coming from. No one has validated this guy knows what he is talking about. I understand your point about self taught, but why do we utilize books written by experts in their field.
Even in school, we utilized books. All my home-training (Languages, Computer, etc.) comes from either books, or things online, and I used to fix situations with people’s from computers.


The guy came up with a translation on his own, without any apparent training on the issues at play regarding the original languages and without any guidance other than what he sought out. BTW, formal education has been a part of this process since ancient times. Paul received formal training in understanding the O.T.
What do you mean “without any apparent training” – he apparently had training resources. And I yet to see anything out of alignment with the Greek, though that does not mean I might someday.


I don’t know that the term “bogus” is a fair description although it definitely looks like he went off the deep end. The fact he doesn’t subscribe to any of the creeds would tend to indicate the guy is a lose canon. A clear sign that one is going down the wrong path is when they step outside the rather limited definitions of the historic creeds. I think if folks played within the lines of the historic creeds you would find a lot less “private interpretations”, I mean that is why the creeds were developed in the 1st place.
I would not say he is a loose canon, and we do not know what creeds he follows. He is Nazarene, so I would suggest he follows the teachings of Christ.


Regarding your question of the 1000 years, I don’t know, I believe all 3 historic millennial views have their merits as well as difficulties.
Thanks. I am curious about the views and reasoning from others on the “1000 years” phrase.


Although a bit dated, I would think John Gill’s commentary is more reliable than Miller’s.

I have the John Gill’s Expositor and have read it quite a bit of it. It took over 40 years for him to do that work and he knew other languages. This is where I get my quotes from for things like other versions (Ethiopian, Arabic, Syriac) and Talmud, Targums, Folios, etc.


Given that Miller doesn’t subscribe to the creeds how can you be assured of any of his thoughts?

And you know this how, and the scripture support for “creeds” is what? If any creed is according to scripture, then the person holding to the scripture will be holding such a creed.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 6th 2008, 10:58 PM
Just whom do you think the “audience” is? “ταχος” is a Nominative Noun.
“John to the seven churches which are in Asia”? The 7 churches?

As I have expressed more than once, there in Revelation 1:1 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Revelation&chapter=1&verse=1), it is more than just the one word, it is two words formed together, and the phrase of that formation is εν (PREPOSITION) ταχει (DATIVE CASE). It appears you feel The Seer implies things happen “Without delay” before he reached the end of his work, where the same expression is used – and considering the resources, external, and internal evidence, the process of these pages on scrolls occurred over a very long time - we note that in two occasions, he goes into a vision. Then there are the 7 letters, which, unless he made one or more copies and sent them out, they did not reach the congregations until the late 1st or 2nd Century
(Laodiceans rejected the texts in 177 A.D. due to the “lukewarm” comments, etc.)
Later.
No, I don’t think the "things" would happen without delay before he finished his work, I’m not sure why you think the stuff would happen before he finished his letter and reported to his intended audience what would “quickly” or “soon” come to pass. I don’t understand your logic that the process of receiving and disseminating the information took a long time so that necessarily means John couldn’t have been informing his audience that relief would be coming “without” delay. It seems to me, based on the internal evidence that the book was written well before your dating. John A. T. Robinson in his book “Redating the New Testament” commenting of Rev 11:1,2, states, “ It is agreed this passage must bespeak a pre-70 situation” pp240. Are there 7 letters or 1 letter sent in circuit? How do you know when the letters reached the congregations according to Epiphanes a 4th Century bishop of Salamis on the island of Cyprus said John saw the vision in the time of Claudius who reigned between 41 – 54 AD. I’m not familiar with you comment about the Laodiceans.

Again, regarding the nominative and dative nouns, so what, I’ve shown that “εν ταχει” is used adverbially to mean “without delay”. According to A&G, “ταχος” is used to indicate “speed, quickness, swiftness, haste” which seems to me to be within the range of “without delay”.



Since you are on the job when accessing the internet (I looked ahead of the posts and saw you make mention of it), I will attempt to reduces the sizes of the replies and put them into individual posts.
Later.
Thanks,


Not with εν (PREPOSITION) ταχει (DATIVE CASE) in this case. In some of the letters to the congregations, according to the text, Christ warns some that IF they do no repent, He will come upon them with quickness (a term that can be used like "suddenly out of the blue"). Thus, IF they repented, they could avoid those "comings".
Later.
Why, according to Arndt and Gingrich it does, 4th Edition “A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature” pp 814-815. OK, how does “out of the blue” help your argument? Unanticipated doesn’t necessarily mean speed, it seems you’ve shown that a word can convey more than one thought.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 12:16 AM
OK, this goes to my point, their translation of the passage is supported by the range of meanings the words and their combinations convey. My point is that your theory of what is correct is guided by your viewpoint which may or may not be correct, which is why I suggested your viewpoint is a theory of how the text should read.
Again, it is not a theory – it is Koine Greek, the grammar, the formation of the words, etc.


Again, assuming the scholars who rendered the translations just didn’t drop something from the text what is your basis for claiming there is a bias that went into the translation as it appears in those texts you dispute? Are you suggesting the translators all subscribed to Alcazar’s system?
No, as pointed out in a previous post to you today – re: 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4. I find it unlikely that any translators or any person well acquainted or fluent in Hebrew and Greek would subscribe to the Alcazar System or any off-shoot of it. Those following that system, or any derived from it, just take advantage of a dynamic or formal equivalence translations.


It’s all Greek to me, what is your point? As I’ve already stated there is more to translation that just word definition.
Yes, Hebrew Idioms and related History.


Have you ever read DA Carson’s book, “Exegetical Fallacy” he has an entire chapter on the logical fallacies that result from merely using the definition of a word to render the translation, which is why, not knowing the original language or schooled on all the issues related to proper translation I rely on the work of skilled professionals who didn’t work in isolation to come up with what the words intend to convey.
I’ve covered the Carson part – indeed, you cannot look into a lexicon and pick any word, especially the Hebrew Lexicons – you have to know which stem (Qal, Piel, etc.) the word is. If I want to go to Spain, I can learn Spanish is outside classes or from the resources at home, and / or the Internet, and once I get to Spain, I doubt they will ask for a graduation paper before they speak to me.


Forgive my obtuseness but save for the suggestion the translators just opted to leave a preposition out, I don’t think you've given me a specific logical reason to support your claim that the majority of recognized mainline translations which render the passage to convey soon or without delay are in error.
It is not “my” claim. It is Koine Greek. Now, the KJV used the word “soon“ for the form ταχεως <5030 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5030)> {Adverb} – you seem to be getting the Forms of TAX (excuse the IRA pun) mixed up as well as Greek words. And there is that term again, even expanded: “recognized mainline translations” – recognized by “whom”? “mainline” identity for what Country or Nation?


Then you agree your question has no bearing on the discussion.
It has all the bearing on the discussion.


Well if there is no reason why have the majority of recognized mainline translations rendered it thus? May I ask, what Country are you residing you?

Back SOON :)

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 01:16 AM
Your presupposition that down through the ages folks were hearing the verse differently seems to be problematic, at least as far as this verse goes.
It’s not a presupposition, it’s historical fact. Even from the time of Irenaeus they knew it to be a future setting.


Again, I don’t claim a wealth of knowledge in the area but I think the KJV and the ESV are based on 2 different NT texts yet yield the same concept for the verse in question. And of course, as I pointed out, all the Koine Greek New Testaments I have say the same thing – so what the any English says, does not matter when looking at that.
KJV and ESV are based on 2 different NT texts? That would explain the discrepancy for the parallel (Luke 4:44) of Mark 1:39:

And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea.
Luke 4:44 ESV

And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.
Luke 4:44 KJV

Isn’t it so nice that even the different Greek Text Bases has brought us diversities to ramble about?:lol:

Actually, I already knew about this, for a very long time.


It would seem if one used 2 Pete 3:8 as guidance for the translation of Rev 1:1, then they are allowing their A Priori to interpret the thought the author was attempting to convey rather than letting the immediate text dictate the thought. If as you say there is no warrant in the text to render the concept of soon, why rely on a passage that may or may not tell one how God tells time? This seemingly would go to show the philosophy of the translator and cause one to wonder what else may or may not have been read into the translation. I agree – why don’t you write about them about that? Of course, if they take the historical position, they could refer to a crisis of anytime in any age as ‘soon getting relief’ (e.g. in Christ coming to the rescue, and possibly rendering vengeance {cp. Revelation 1:7 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Revelation&chapter=1&verse=7), which is in the PRESENT TENSE & INDICATIVE MOOD (5736 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5736)) - "a continuous or repetitive action"), though it may be death, it will be better for the follower(s) of the Lord, or acknowledge the meaning of the term, “with speed”, “with a suddenness”, etc.

Back shortly :)

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 02:09 AM
Again, it is not a theory – it is Koine Greek, the grammar, the formation of the words, etc.

Back SOON

Sure it is, your theory is based on how you think the grammar applies to Koine Greek. Clearly how you think the rules apply wasn’t held by the translators of the mainline English translations that I provided. Which means your claim is just that, in fact the term theory might be a bit of a stretch. Obviously there is something you are missing because the folks who translated the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV to name a few didn’t drop the preposition when they translated the passage.

Here is another guy’s take on it. The guy has a formable back-ground in the original languages and is a graduate of a very prestigious Seminary.

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>). (ESV) The phrase “that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place” and the phrase “the time is near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>)” are tightly bound by context. So it just won’t do to say that the lexical range of <φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ> permits a meaning that at some far off (from the time of writing of Revelation) time a complex of events will happen quickly, rather than that the complex of events will happen in the near future of the time of writing.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=6982&highlight=soon%2C+quickly (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=6982&highlight=soon%2C+quickly)



No, as pointed out in a previous post to you today – re: 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4. I find it unlikely that any translators or any person well acquainted or fluent in Hebrew and Greek would subscribe to the Alcazar System or any off-shoot of it.


OK, then the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV didn’t have the bias you suggested I had when disputing your claim. Why then did they all translate the passage contrary to what you claim the grammar of Koine Greek will only allow? I haven’t caught up to your comment on 2 Peter or Psalms yet



Yes, Hebrew Idioms and related History.

You really need to get your hands on a copy of Carson’s book, especially if you are going to advise folks on how to learn and use common Greek of the 1st Century.



I’ve covered the Carson part – indeed, you cannot look into a lexicon and pick any word, especially the Hebrew Lexicons – you have to know which stem (Qal, Piel, etc.) the word is. If I want to go to Spain, I can learn Spanish is outside classes or from the resources at home, and / or the Internet, and once I get to Spain, I doubt they will ask for a graduation paper before they speak to me.


Please procure a copy of Carson’s book, there is much more in the soup than stems.



It is not “my” claim. It is Koine Greek. Now, the KJV used the word “soon“ for the form ταχεως <5030 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5030)> {Adverb} – you seem to be getting the Forms of TAX (excuse the IRA pun) mixed up as well as Greek words. And there is that term again, even expanded: “recognized mainline translations” – recognized by “whom”? “mainline” identity for what Country or Nation?


It is your claim in how the rules of grammar are used for common Greek, which is your understanding of the rules, which is your theory of the rules. I must not be the only one that got them mixed up because the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV all rendered the passage with the same concept of “soon”.

Scholars?
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=663 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=663)




It has all the bearing on the discussion.


Well then why would you suggest, “I find it unlikely that any translators or any person well acquainted or fluent in Hebrew and Greek would subscribe to the Alcazar System or any off-shoot of it.” The nexus between your question and the discussion would seem to be based on my insistence that the translators who rendered the passage to convey the events would be happening “soon” or without delay would seem to indicate you believed one arguing my position was because I had adopted Alcazar’s system, yet when I ask you directly if you think the translators who rendered the passage that I’m supporting would subscribe to that position you suggest it unlikely. I don’t get your argument? You need to give me a logical reason why the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV all rendered the passage with the same concept of “soon”.




May I ask, what Country are you residing you?


U.S.A.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 02:30 AM
It’s not a presupposition, it’s historical fact. Even from the time of Irenaeus they knew it to be a future setting.


Some did some didn’t, some saw Rev 20 as entirely future, some saw it as a current reality. Do you think all of orthodoxy in the 1st couple of centuries were chiliasts? I don’t know how you think it is a fact that all the folks down through the ages heard the verses differently. Although the term, “heard” does have a range of meanings so I suppose we both could have a point.



And of course, as I pointed out, all the Koine Greek New Testaments I have say the same thing – so what the any English says, does not matter when looking at that.
KJV and ESV are based on 2 different NT texts? That would explain the discrepancy for the parallel (Luke 4:44) of Mark 1:39:


I don’t understand you argument you just indicated, “throughout history, other Christians were teaching, hearing, and learning the verse differently than others did” Evidently, they were all hearing the Greek the same way, eh? Why don’t we stick with Rev 1:1 for now? How do you know that all Christians down through the ages heard something different about Rev 1:1. The fact the early Church up until the time of Irenaeus were all anticipating the imminent return of Christ would seem to invalidate your claim or as I suggested earlier make you claim problematic.



And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea.
Luke 4:44 ESV

And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.
Luke 4:44 KJV

Isn’t it so nice that even the different Greek Text Bases has brought us diversities to ramble about?
Truly, I am enjoying the discussion; however, given your frame of reference couldn’t the term be synonymous?



Actually, I already knew about this, for a very long time.

I agree – why don’t you write about them about that? Of course, if they take the historical position, they could refer to a crisis of anytime in any age as ‘soon getting relief’ (e.g. in Christ coming to the rescue, and possibly rendering vengeance {cp. Revelation 1:7 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Revelation&chapter=1&verse=7), which is in the PRESENT TENSE & INDICATIVE MOOD (5736 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5736)) - "a continuous or repetitive action"), though it may be death, it will be better for the follower(s) of the Lord, or acknowledge the meaning of the term, “with speed”, “with a suddenness”, etc.


Why would I need to the translations that I use are in agreement, and as far as I know the disparate translators of those translations didn’t need to prop up their translation based on some bogus argument. Rev 1:1 rendered “without delay” makes sense to me.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 02:48 AM
1:3 in both the KJV and ESV both convey the thought that the time of fulfillment of the prophecy is at hand or near, which speaks to the “when” as does the “without delay” or “soon” concept of 1:1, which is consistent with 1:19. I’m unaware of anyone poking a word into the context. What is the, “non-popular "historical-contemporary" philosophy?

Actually, I am not exactly sure there was a word-to-word of “soon” from Koine Greek to English, at least not in the clockwise sense, thus, they had to be more specific, or just made do with the vocabulary they had (though, they are are far expanded one that the Hebrew). The clockwise sense of “soon” (requires 3 Greek words) and the word “soon” (requires just one Greek Word) are available in Modern Greek, so I will look into it – as I said, they have expanded their vocabulary (doesn’t most languages over time?), they even added an array of Indefinite Articles (“a”, and “an”).

"historical-contemporary"

Source used here (at least mostly – I have some “sic” insertions”):

"A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Revelation of St. John"; R. H. Charles, T. & T. Clark, 1920 (2 Volumes), which all together, is over a 1000 pages. In addition to the 8 years experience he already had in Revelation, he, by request, did a 25 year study (he was the same cat that brought the Books Of Enoch, Pseudepigrapha, and more - a linguistics professional and knew other languages, Biblical Scholar, and etc.)

i.clxxxiii (189) METHODS OF INTERPRETATION (XV)
i. =The Contemporary-Historical Method=. This method rightly presupposes that the visions of The Seer relate to contemporary events and to future events so far as they arise out of them. The real historical horizons of the book were early lost. {Sic: Perhaps this is Revelation DSS which was not known to R. H. Charles and most of the world at that time[?]} Yet, even so, traces of the Contemporary-Historical Method still persist in Irenaeus[2], Hippolytus, and Victorinus of Pettau. But with the rise of the "Spiritualizing Method" in Alexandria this true method was driven from the field and lost to use till it was revived by the Roman and non-Roman Christian scholars of the 17th century. These scholars established as an assured result that the Apocalypse was “originally” directed against Rome. The Apocalypse is not to be treated as an allegory, but to be interpreted in reference to definite concrete kingdoms, powers, events, and expectations. But, though the visions of The Seer related to contemporary events, they are not limited to these. For, as Charles pointed out in Vol. II. 86 of his work {sic: referenced here within this post}:
"no great prophecy receives its full and final fulfilment in any single event or series of events. =In fact, it may not be fulfilled at all in regard to the object against which it was primarily delivered by the prophet or seer=. But if it is the expression of a great moral and spiritual truth, it will of a surety be fulfilled at sundry times and in divers manners and in varying degrees of completeness" in the history of the world.

Blessings.

------------------------------
Footnotes:

[2]. Early Church Father Irenaeus (circa 130-202 AD): (http://bibleforums.org/#_ednref1)
"For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works.' This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year. Irenaeus against Heresies, Book 5, Chap 28, sec 3.

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 02:55 AM
Actually, I am not exactly sure there was a word-to-word of “soon” from Koine Greek to English, at least not in the clockwise sense, thus, they had to be more specific, or just made do with the vocabulary they had (though, they are are far expanded one that the Hebrew). The clockwise sense of “soon” (requires 3 Greek words) and the word “soon” (requires just one Greek Word) are available in Modern Greek, so I will look into it – as I said, they have expanded their vocabulary (doesn’t most languages over time?), they even added an array of Indefinite Articles (“a”, and “an”).

"historical-contemporary"

Source used here (at least mostly – I have some “sic” insertions”):

"A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Revelation of St. John"; R. H. Charles, T. & T. Clark, 1920 (2 Volumes), which all together, is over a 1000 pages. In addition to the 8 years experience he already had in Revelation, he, by request, did a 25 year study (he was the same cat that brought the Books Of Enoch, Pseudepigrapha, and more - a linguistics professional and knew other languages, Biblical Scholar, and etc.)

i.clxxxiii (189) METHODS OF INTERPRETATION (XV)
i. =The Contemporary-Historical Method=. This method rightly presupposes that the visions of The Seer relate to contemporary events and to future events so far as they arise out of them. The real historical horizons of the book were early lost. {Sic: Perhaps this is Revelation DSS which was not known to R. H. Charles and most of the world at that time[?]} Yet, even so, traces of the Contemporary-Historical Method still persist in Irenaeus[2], Hippolytus, and Victorinus of Pettau. But with the rise of the "Spiritualizing Method" in Alexandria this true method was driven from the field and lost to use till it was revived by the Roman and non-Roman Christian scholars of the 17th century. These scholars established as an assured result that the Apocalypse was “originally” directed against Rome. The Apocalypse is not to be treated as an allegory, but to be interpreted in reference to definite concrete kingdoms, powers, events, and expectations. But, though the visions of The Seer related to contemporary events, they are not limited to these. For, as Charles pointed out in Vol. II. 86 of his work {sic: referenced here within this post}:
"no great prophecy receives its full and final fulfilment in any single event or series of events. =In fact, it may not be fulfilled at all in regard to the object against which it was primarily delivered by the prophet or seer=. But if it is the expression of a great moral and spiritual truth, it will of a surety be fulfilled at sundry times and in divers manners and in varying degrees of completeness" in the history of the world.

Blessings.

------------------------------
Footnotes:

[2]. Early Church Father Irenaeus (circa 130-202 AD): (http://bibleforums.org/#_ednref1)
"For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works.' This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year. Irenaeus against Heresies, Book 5, Chap 28, sec 3.

Thanks, but I think the target was 2nd Temple Judaism although Rome was in play becasue that along with 2nd Temple Judaism was one of the 2 oppressors of the early Church.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 03:03 AM
Here is an English Blend with a plug-in from the Arabic Version and how they read it, taught it, and heard it (Revelation 1:1):

(1) This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that are to occur with speed, in future ages, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John, (2) who testified to God’s word, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, about everything that he saw, both the things that are and those that must happen after these.


I like your plug, is this an example of, “it does not grant rights to poke παραχρημα into verse one”?

Nope, that has version support – the ancient Arabic Version – which had the reading “in future ages,” in what we now know as Revelation 1:1 – As I said, the version and how they read it, taught it, and heard it - this is phrase mentioned in the John Gill Expository, as well as:

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=001&verse=001)

Scroll down to the subheading “to show unto his servant things which must shortly come to pass:” as see.

The notable Difference in the old Gill and New Gill is that
“…though it is sixteen hundred years ago and more…” has become:
“though it is nineteen hundred years ago and more”

So I doubt the Arabics would recognize your gleaning, like saying "will soon occur in future ages".;)

Later.

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 03:44 AM
?
A LITERAL-ANALYTICAL rendering from ALT, so you hopefully might capture what the verse really says and means in Greek, as opposed to a Formal, Dynamic or other Equivalence Version. To learn a little more about Formal and Dynamic Translations, I refer you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_equivalence


It seems to me you are comparing an apple and an orange. Granted Scripture provides us general principles and informs us of the issues at hand in the day to day spiritual battle Christians are engaged in but this doesn’t negate the simple fact of the real battle 1st Century Christians were engaged in. The N.T. is the historical record of the battle the 1st Christians encountered and the severe persecution to which they were subjected. The letter was to real churches who as the record in chapter 2 & 3 indicates were under sever and worsening pressure. It would not seem plausible that the author would suggest that they were within tribulation, advise them relief was near and not be serious. Apparently, you not only have different Greek for 1:1, but several of the other verses as well :(

So the “audience” by your terms is in the time of Domitian, and does not include all those of later centuries, which faced worst, eh? The letters are basically a separate entity from the rest of the Bible Revelation (obviously, DSS Revelation does not contain them);

The comment “The letter was to real churches” makes no sense – or was that a typo on your part, and you meant to say “letters” (PLURAL)? Not knocking you - I make typos all the time – I’m probably the worst for that here;

FTR,. there were no “churches” in those days as you might perceive as now – separate buildings for holding services beyond homes.. The Greek Ekklesia never referred to a building as they are referred to today. Those are not recognized by scripture, as well as any intentions of having them. Those were instituted by Constantine and began then. In the 1st three centuries, “church” was held in homes (cp. Ro 16:5; 1Co 16:19; Col4:15; Phm 1:2 which are some of the direct-to-the point references), except at times of severe persecutions, they would hide in catacombs. Now, by the end of the 3rd Century, some had given up their homes for meetings, and went on to take on newer homes.

So it is actually seven letters to congregations, of which flourished at different times. Ephesus being that last since Paul does not mention any congregation there, so it would be about the 70’s before it flourish. Of course, by the time John did the letters, they all had advanced. And as I said, we are not sure any of them got those letters until the next generation or more of believers in those seven areas.


Again, teaching is a universal instruction however not all are under tribulation nor do they have “Jews which are not” in their midst. I think it is Eusebius who likewise records that Christians living in
Jerusalem prior to 70AD recalling Christ’s words left and were spared the onslaught. Don’t understand this – sounds like you want into some area of the Christian Greek Scriptures outside of Revelation. Are you referring to the flight to Pella of the Christians? If Jerusalem would have survived and not be so destroyed than we would have ”eight letters” in Revelation since The Seer would have addressed the assemblies of Jerusalem as well, and most likely, the first one, so I do not understand your allusion to Jerusalem. Is this related to the teachings of Alcazar that pleased the RCC?

Tomorrow.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 03:53 AM
Nope, that has version support – the ancient Arabic Version – which had the reading “in future ages,” in what we now know as Revelation 1:1 – As I said, the version and how they read it, taught it, and heard it - this is phrase mentioned in the John Gill Expository, as well as:

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=001&verse=001)

Scroll down to the subheading “to show unto his servant things which must shortly come to pass:” as see.

The notable Difference in the old Gill and New Gill is that
“…though it is sixteen hundred years ago and more…” has become:
“though it is nineteen hundred years ago and more”

So I doubt the Arabics would recognize your gleaning, like saying "will soon occur in future ages".;)

Later.

While Gill does comment on "future ages" doesn't he suggest the things began then? Again, if Gill suggests the stuff that is currently going on will as well go on in future ages, how do you know the Arabics wouldn't have understood it the same way Gill and I do?

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 05:51 AM
A LITERAL-ANALYTICAL rendering from ALT, so you hopefully might capture what the verse really says and means in Greek, as opposed to a Formal, Dynamic or other Equivalence Version. To learn a little more about Formal and Dynamic Translations, I refer you to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_equivalence)


The ? was for the analytical, where is your analytical which conceivably would have taken into account this argument,

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>). (ESV) The phrase “that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place” and the phrase “the time is near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>)” are tightly bound by context. So it just won’t do to say that the lexical range of <φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ> permits a meaning that at some far off (from the time of writing of Revelation) time a complex of events will happen quickly, rather than that the complex of events will happen in the near future of the time of writing.



Apparently, you not only have different Greek for 1:1, but several of the other verses as well

No doubt, as those who have all used the historical-grammatical approach down through the ages.



So the “audience” by your terms is in the time of Domitian, and does not include all those of later centuries, which faced worst, eh? The letters are basically a separate entity from the rest of the Bible Revelation (obviously, DSS Revelation does not contain them);


Well, I believe there is reason to believe is was written pre-Domitian, but yes I think the original audience was those living at the time that shared the tribulation with John. Separate entity? You think the author photocopied what chapter 4 on and just attached that to each scroll that contained the specific text for each of the individual churches contemplated?



The comment “The letter was to real churches” makes no sense – or was that a typo on your part, and you meant to say “letters” (PLURAL)? Not knocking you - I make typos all the time – I’m probably the worst for that here;

No offense taken, do you think the churches were fictional? My understanding is that the style of writing back then was in scroll form. I don’t think the author sent out 7 copies of chapters four through 22 and then a single copy of each individual churches message. I think it more likely that the letter was written to 7 real churches who were actually encountering the issues discussed and then each church copied the document and sent the original on. The term “churches” is used in Rev 1:4.



FTR,. there were no “churches” in those days as you might perceive as now – separate buildings for holding services beyond homes.. The Greek Ekklesia never referred to a building as they are referred to today. Those are not recognized by scripture, as well as any intentions of having them. Those were instituted by Constantine and began then. In the 1st three centuries, “church” was held in homes (cp. Ro 16:5; 1Co 16:19; Col4:15; Phm 1:2 which are some of the direct-to-the point references), except at times of severe persecutions, they would hide in catacombs. Now, by the end of the 3rd Century, some had given up their homes for meetings, and went on to take on newer homes.


Did I refer to a building? What did you think I meant? I think the churches referred to in 1:4, which btw identies the audience as the “seven churches” (plural) were different groups of believers in each of the different towns identified. Each group of believers was a local church therefore when the term is used to identify “churches” the author is identifiying the different groups of believers scattered about. Again, the term church can be used to identify the spiritual universal church of Christ, the entire body of believers or it can mean the local group of believers as in the “church of Ephesus”. If the letter was intended for 2 groups of believers say one in Ephesus and one in say Smyrna then the plural form of the word would be appropriate, correct?. Oh, btw, regarding the building I think recent archeological evidence indicates there were separate and distinct buildings used for Christian synagogues as opposed the Jewish synagogues in the 1st Century, which may or may not have been single individual family dwellings.



So it is actually seven letters to congregations, of which flourished at different times. Ephesus being that last since Paul does not mention any congregation there, so it would be about the 70’s before it flourish. Of course, by the time John did the letters, they all had advanced. And as I said, we are not sure any of them got those letters until the next generation or more of believers in those seven areas.


Surely you jest, parsing over church versus congregation? What makes you think they flourished over time. Have you ever read up on the mathematical progressions required for Christianity to take over the Roman empire, to become the conventional wisdom of the day replacing paganism in a couple of hundred years? Methinks you are rather naïve regarding the depth, breadth and speed, (I trust you understand the meaning of the word I’m attempting to convey) with which the Gospel spread across the known world by say 55 – 60 AD or so. According to Paul, prior to the end of his life, the Gospel had spread throughout the entire world.



Don’t understand this – sounds like you want into some area of the Christian Greek Scriptures outside of Revelation. Are you referring to the flight to Pella of the Christians? If Jerusalem would have survived and not be so destroyed than we would have ”eight letters” in Revelation since The Seer would have addressed the assemblies of Jerusalem as well, and most likely, the first one, so I do not understand your allusion to Jerusalem. Is this related to the teachings of Alcazar that pleased the RCC?

Tomorrow.

Blessings.



Well I don’t think I ever suggested Eusebius wrote Revelation. My illustration of the Churches attention to the detail of Christ’s words had to do with the relevance of the intended audience the passage was meant for.

“Early Christian historians Eusebius and Epiphanius claim that prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70 the Jerusalem Christians fled to the Decapolis city of Pella (note also Mark 13:14; Matt 24:15; Lu 21:20-22; cf. 19:43-44).”

http://www.wheaton.edu/DistanceLearning/Pella.htm (http://www.wheaton.edu/DistanceLearning/Pella.htm)

You will recall the comment was made in reference to the audience intended by the author? Whoever it pleased in history, it certainly pleased the Christians who heeded Christ’s warning.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 07:51 AM
Not all of them as I have already pointed out. You just got to perceive it correctly according to the context and Greek.
What you perceive to be correct is a theory. Do you now understand why I’m suggesting your view is a theory?


The fact that some translations, even NET, use the word “soon” without accounting for the preposition is because of the very reason they will give you if you ask them about it – like Wilbur Pickering – they will quote 2 Peter 3:8 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=2Peter&chapter=3&verse=8) and Psalms 90:4 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psalms&chapter=90&verse=4), and say, well “it has not even been “2 days yet” – by your view, there has been almost a 2 day “delay” so far. As for the Septuagint, I have already addressed that. You view it as if it is using another Greek word, or words.

Later.

Do you have a for instance? IOW, can you produce an argument from someone who translated the passage rendering a view of “without delay” or “soon” that uses a similar argument as Wilbur Pickering? Where are you getting that my view equates to a “2 days yet” point of view, my view is that the phrase in question means what the translators indicate it means, without delay, I’m not suggesting words need be inserted, that is a red herring on your part.



Sounds like IMO versus IMO versus IMO versus IMO to me.


I think that is what I’ve been saying you got a theory there is another theory.





We Christians of the past, present, and future are the “audience” (if I am guessing your term correctly, and you mean readers of the text). The documents in Revelation are spread out over decades, and “the sources” (which I gave you two links to review in post #44 within this thread) are anywhere from the time of Moses (maybe even as earlier as the family of Adam and Eve) on up to the mid 90’s A.D. - So I do not know if your term “dilemma” is singular or plural. I would recommend it to be plural, for the text relates struggles of the past, present, and “continuing” struggles for Christians until the next main Advent of Christ.


Clifton, you seem much to bright to suggest the author had in mind an audience of the 21st Century. Who were the folks the author had in mind in Rev 1:9 when he wrote, “I John, who also am your brother in tribulation” I don’t think he had me in mind because I’ve never been in tribulation. So who did he have in mind? You seriously think he had Moses who was dead buried and in heaven in mind?



I do not concur that “the translators universally conveyed a thought of without delay”, especially in other languages and countries, since by the English point-of-view, their has been almost a “2-day delay” (by their referencing 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4) so far.
Later.

Ok, so you want to give me an English translation say prior to 1950 or so that gave a different rendition? Again, I’m not talking about one of those one off translations where some individual developed the translation by himself. Again, I haven’t a clue as to what you mean by “2-Day delay”.



I do not concur that “the translators universally conveyed a thought of without delay”, especially in other languages and countries, since by the English point-of-view, their has been almost a “2-day delay” (by their referencing 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4) so far.

As for the spread of persecution, be it individualized, localized or wide-spread, consider the more localized Neronic times, and the more wide-spread Domitian, then the even worst, which is referred to as The GREAT Persecution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians) (I believe that even holy books were burned) of Christians in the 3rd Century – aka “The Diocletian Persecution”, and worst in the 20th Century – it gets worst and worst, until there will be a world-wide one;

… sometimes it is individualized too;

"'I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas <493 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=493)> my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.Revelation 2:13 ESV
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Revelation&chapter=2&verse=13 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Revelation&chapter=2&verse=13)

During the time of Antipas (referred to as the proto-martyr of Revelation) as bishop, 83 A.D. until his martyrization, April 11. 92 A.D., as traditions has it, there was not a spread of Christian Persecution. Though, other martyrs followed him at Pergamum (Agathonice, Attalus, Carpus, Polybus).

You can access info for Antipas at:

http://latter-rain.com/escha/antipas.htm (http://latter-rain.com/escha/antipas.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipas_of_Pergamum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipas_of_Pergamum)

There are other sites as well.

Do you have this idea that The Seer was only addressing the upcoming Domitian persecution, and not the worst ones later, e.g. The Diocletian Persecution? The Verb of Revelation does not concur. Did those of The Diocletian Persecution, Russian Persecution have hope and relief, or even the more localized ones, like of Neron and in times afterwards?

Later.

“Latter-rain” Harold Camping? No I think the author had in mind the current persecution that the Church was experiencing at the hands of both 2nd Temple Judaism, (synagogue of Satan) and the Romans, both of which can be shown in the book of Acts. Sure, folks post this event had hope of relief, didn’t I tell you that the principles of Christianity can be applied throughout eternity? Nevertheless, that does not negate that the letter was written to real people in real harms way that were in dire circumstances. You seem to be forgetting this simple fact.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 02:33 PM
According to Eusebius the recognition of Christ’s words was of 1st Century help to Christians living around Jerusalem prior to 70AD. zYour dating of the book is a debatable topic.

Not for me – I’ve been at this for almost 36 years so that is closed for me as far as my long road of studies is concerned, as it was for Eusebius, and he does not date the composition (completed) of the Book. I do have his works. ;)

Blessings.
---------

Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Chapter 8.

He (Irenaeus) states these things in the third book of his above-mentioned work. In the fifth book he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John, and the number of the name of Antichrist:

"As these things are so, and this number (666) is found in all the approved and ancient copies, and those who saw John face to face confirm it, and reason teaches us that the number of the name of the beast, according to the mode of calculation among the Greeks, appears in its letters...."

And farther on he says concerning the same:

"We are not bold enough to speak confidently of the name of Antichrist. For if it were necessary that his name should be declared clearly at the present time, it would have been announced by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen, not long ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian." He states these things concerning the Apocalypse in the work referred to.

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 02:37 PM
The point still applies, the definiton of the word or range of meaning is only one aspect of the translation.

PaulT

Along with the rules of grammatical structure, idioms, etc., yes - but you are actually swapping around Greek words, so your comment here does not apply.

Later.

Teke
Mar 7th 2008, 03:01 PM
Appreciate your input of your thoughts on the "1000" years part of Rev. 20. I am curious as to feel what people think it means and why. The Greek Dictionary gives no one option.

I guess I should have created a different thread for the question - oh well, things seem to be repetitive here (nothing new under the sun:D), so perhaps I can do it somewhere down the road here.

Keep on shining ever so brightly!:)

I've explored this very thing, "I am curious as to feel what people think it means and why." Basically it is the very question which defines a Christian. Either Jesus is Lord or He is not.

Those who are not sure usually wind up in the Jewish train of thought, were prophecy is continual and there is never any real fulfillment. This sort of thinking has led the Jew to not really believe in Messiah, or else to not be sure one way or another. And they don't use Revelation but Ezekiel to differ on the matter of what the thousand years or the millennial is.

Ironically, you and the poster PaulT, are having the same debate. I am inclined to agree with PaulT on this matter. As the matter isn't so much one of language, but of understanding.

In modern times we see some Jewish influence in the day=thousand year concept of eschatology. Usually those who relate themselves as Messianic Christian are like the Dispensationalist in being caught in this trap. The trap being the thinking, and the thinking being on what their decision is.

The world is also a trap for carnal thinking, and so we should not turn our attention to such worldly thinking, such as times, or even time itself. Christians are not of this world, so such means will do them no good. Nor has any good come of such thinking, as is evident from the plethora of "end times" speculations and the animosity caused by them.

The early church fathers, of which you have quoted some on, defined the matter for us within the context of The Eschaton, The Alpha and Omega, and/or The Trinity. Not as a concept of time as we perceive it, but as God accomplishing His will in the creation. Meaning any definition is concluded within that context (God as Alpha and Omega). The context and concept being "recapitulation". As God is both the beginning and end of all things, and all is all in Him. :)

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 05:47 PM
]I’m having a hard time following you, but didn’t we already agree that the prepositional phrase, “en taxei” used adverbially conveys the meaning of “without delay”? Again, how does arguing the noun is limited to one range of its meaning, something you appear to be suggesting, not a logical fallacy? [/color]
The are factors in play in Greek Words like declensions, conjugations, grammar, and what words are “connected” with a given word. Grammar would includes things like CASE, NUMBER GENDER, PERSON, TENSE VOICE, and MOOD – for Greek Verbs, there can be over 30 of them, where in English, about 4 words/phrases would be used for, except for pronouns – e.g. “I CAME”, “I HAVE CAME”, “I COME”, “I HAVE COME”, “I WILL COME”, “I SHALL COME”, all have separate Greek Verbs, and of course, separate ones where a different pronoun would be used, e.g. “She/He, We, They, You (singular), You (plural)”, the Greek words would be different, then of course, there are cases where renderings like:
“WHEN he/she/it comes… had came, will come, etc.”;

In Dictionary ENTRIES/Lexicons, they only provide one form of the given word.

Let’s review…

γενεσθαι G1096 V-2ADN | εν G1722 PREP | ταχει G5034 N-DSN

V-2ADN
Part of Speech: Verb
Tense: second Aorist
Voice: middle Deponent
Mood: iNfinitive

PREP:
Part Of Speech: PREPostion

N-DSN :
Part of Speech: Noun
Case: Dative (indirect object, "to"; also location "in", "at"; instrument, "with")
Number: Singular
Gender: Neuter

So your comment “The point still applies, the definition of the word or range of meaning is only one aspect of the translation” is true – it depends upon the context, the grammar of the word, and what other words are associated. “εν ταχει” is connected to the verb γενεσθαι <1096 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1096)>. The Greek preposition “εν” itself is defined as “in, by, with etc.”, and as I have pointed out better in a previous post, since The Greek “ταχει” is the “Dative” (that is why the “ει” is there at the end of “ταχει” – it is a “declined” form of ταχος.), which indicates “by, with, for, etc.”, the fact that the Greek “ταχει” is the “Dative”, does not subtract the indicators “by, with, for, etc.”, just from the emphasis of “εν”. Since the preceding Greek text for “εν ταχει” is instrumental, a literal interlinear style):

α <3739> {that} | δει <1163> (5904) {necessary} | γενεσθαι <1096> (5635) | {to occur} | εν <1722> {with} | ταχει <5034> {with speed}.

It is literally (“too literally”) from the above:
“that necessary to occur with with speed” – obviously here, the word “are” can be supplied after the word “that” (e.g. that [are] necessary), and one of the "with" words can be dropped. Adverbs could/would/may be used in Formal or Dynamic Versions of the Bible.

BTW, The Greek Position “εν” <1722 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1722)> was one of the first 9 words I learned (where Koine Greek is concerned – I explored a little Modern Greek first)… the 9 words are in John 1:1 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=John&chapter=1&verse=1).

For Modern Greek, the vocabulary is not only expanded, but the definitions are as well. I have a little pocket dictionary, and like Strong’s and other lexicons, it only provides one form of the word and a simple condensed meaning, or meanings, for English:

ταχυτητα (η): gear; speed.
σινδωμα: soon
σε λιγη ωρα: soon (clock/time wise).

So, it still continues to come back to the Greek and reader of it - the things that occur when they are to occur, occur with a suddenness and quickness (no gap or delay).

Later.

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 07:19 PM
Along with the rules of grammatical structure, idioms, etc., yes - but you are actually swapping around Greek words, so your comment here does not apply.

Later.

I don't understand your point, what words do you think the translators who rendered the passage with the concept of "without delay" are swapping around?

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 07:32 PM
My point was your restriction as to the aspect of the meaning of the word is the logical fallacy. I didn’t say you said anything about arriving; my illustration was merely to point out the broader range of the meaning. Your restriction on the meaning seems to me to be a fallacy, a subject that appears to me to be covered on pg 57 of DA Carson’s book “Exegetical Fallacies” where he deals with a subject entitled, “unwarranted restriction of the semantic field”. There is no restriction here in the example – you can use “with speed”, “suddenly”, “quickly” as to the car “flying by”. Now come on, look at what you have said – a real mode of circumlocution – does any reader here actually believe when a car flies by, they are going to “the car flew by soon/shortly”? Most amusing. I provided a “distinction” that was made between the different Greek words, not a “restriction” – it appears to me you are the one doing that, and to beat it all, by even using a different Greek word, or words. :hmm:
If the argument was answered I missed it. Again, have you ever read D.A. Carson’s book? Doing this on the job may have caused you to glance over paragraphs. All I can do is recommend tracing back ;)
Truly, we used a new marinade of a new to us discovered recipe. The chicken was excellent. Could be a sign of an end times :D

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 07:40 PM
The are factors in play in Greek Words like declensions, conjugations, grammar, and what words are “connected” with a given word. Grammar would includes things like CASE, NUMBER GENDER, PERSON, TENSE VOICE, and MOOD – for Greek Verbs, there can be over 30 of them, where in English, about 4 words/phrases would be used for, except for pronouns – e.g. “I CAME”, “I HAVE CAME”, “I COME”, “I HAVE COME”, “I WILL COME”, “I SHALL COME”, all have separate Greek Verbs, and of course, separate ones where a different pronoun would be used, e.g. “She/He, We, They, You (singular), You (plural)”, the Greek words would be different, then of course, there are cases where renderings like:

“WHEN he/she/it comes… had came, will come, etc.”;

In Dictionary ENTRIES/Lexicons, they only provide one form of the given word.

Let’s review…

γενεσθαι G1096 V-2ADN | εν G1722 PREP | ταχει G5034 N-DSN

V-2ADN
Part of Speech:Verb
Tense:second Aorist
Voice:middle Deponent
Mood:iNfinitive

PREP:
Part Of Speech: PREPostion

N-DSN:
Part of Speech:Noun
Case:Dative (indirect object, "to"; also location "in", "at"; instrument, "with")
Number:Singular
Gender:Neuter
So your comment “The point still applies, the definition of the word or range of meaning is only one aspect of the translation” is true – it depends upon the context, the grammar of the word, and what other words are associated. “εν ταχει” is connected to the verb γενεσθαι <1096 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1096)>. The Greek preposition “εν” itself is defined as “in, by, with etc.”, and as I have pointed out better in a previous post, since The Greek “ταχει” is the “Dative” (that is why the “ει” is there at the end of “ταχει” – it is a “declined” form of ταχος.), which indicates “by, with, for, etc.”, the fact that the Greek “ταχει” is the “Dative”, does not subtract the indicators “by, with, for, etc.”, just from the emphasis of “εν”. Since the preceding Greek text for “εν ταχει” is instrumental, a literal interlinear style):

α <3739> {that} | δει <1163> (5904) {necessary} | γενεσθαι <1096> (5635) | {to occur} | εν <1722> {with} | ταχει <5034> {with speed}.

It is literally (“too literally”) from the above:
“that necessary to occur with with speed” – obviously here, the word “are” can be supplied after the word “that” (e.g. that [are] necessary), and one of the "with" words can be dropped. Adverbs could/would/may be used in Formal or Dynamic Versions of the Bible.

BTW, The Greek Position “εν” <1722 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1722)> was one of the first 9 words I learned (where Koine Greek is concerned – I explored a little Modern Greek first)… the 9 words are in John 1:1 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=John&chapter=1&verse=1).

For Modern Greek, the vocabulary is not only expanded, but the definitions are as well. I have a little pocket dictionary, and like Strong’s and other lexicons, it only provides one form of the word and a simple condensed meaning, or meanings, for English:

ταχυτητα (η): gear; speed.
σινδωμα: soon
σε λιγη ωρα: soon (clock/time wise).

So, it still continues to come back to the Greek and reader of it - the things that occur when they are to occur, occur with a suddenness and quickness (no gap or delay).

Later.

I noticed in your above response that you acknowledged, “So your comment “The point still applies, the definition of the word or range of meaning is only one aspect of the translation” is true – it depends upon the context, the grammar of the word, and what other words are associated.”

Assuming that all the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB and the ESV understood the rules of Koine grammar as well as you, your acknowledgement that “context” is a key component would seem to go to the argument below.

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>). (ESV) The phrase “that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place” and the phrase “the time is near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>)” are tightly bound by context. So it just won’t do to say that the lexical range of <φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ> permits a meaning that at some far off (from the time of writing of Revelation) time a complex of events will happen quickly, rather than that the complex of events will happen in the near future of the time of writing.

I haven’t seen you deal with the contradiction your claim causes in lieu of the above argument.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 07:43 PM
There is no restriction here in the example – you can use “with speed”, “suddenly”, “quickly” as to the car “flying by”. Now come on, look at what you have said – a real mode of circumlocution – does any reader here actually believe when a car flies by, they are going to “the car flew by soon/shortly”? Most amusing. I provided a “distinction” that was made between the different Greek words, not a “restriction” – it appears to me you are the one doing that, and to beat it all, by even using a different Greek word, or words. Doing this on the job may have caused you to glance over paragraphs. All I can do is recommend tracing back Could be a sign of an end times

Blessings.

How many different meanings are there for the word rollercoaster, and what are they?

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 08:24 PM
Even in school, we utilized books. All my home-training (Languages, Computer, etc.) comes from either books, or things online, and I used to fix situations with people’s from computers.

Blessings.

Yeah, but in school you had a professor to clarify your understanding of the subject and to make sure your conclusions were well founded. Tell you what, if you are in need of a heart transplant are you going to seek out the services of a self-educated physician or one who went to medical school? The purpose of the professor is to validate the student is comprehending the material.



What do you mean “without any apparent training” – he apparently had training resources. And I yet to see anything out of alignment with the Greek, though that does not mean I might someday.Blessings.
The meaning is self-evident in the term used to describe his training; “self-taught” is not training. His conclusions based on the material read were not validated by skilled academia.



I would not say he is a loose canon, and we do not know what creeds he follows. He is Nazarene, so I would suggest he follows the teachings of Christ.
Blessings.
Well he certainly sounds like one, if you read his bio it indicates he subscribes to no creeds. He left orthodoxy and followed a cult eventually even leaving the cult. I’m not sure that he is a Nazarene; it seemed he was using a term that is the name of a Protestant denomination yet his use was to indicate he followed the teachings of the Nazarene, (Jesus Christ) and therefore is a Nazarene. The fact he doesn’t hold to the doctrine of the trinity would indicated he is not a member of the Nazarene Church.



Thanks. I am curious about the views and reasoning from others on the “1000 years” phrase.
Blessings.
No problem



I have the John Gill’s Expositor and have read it quite a bit of it. It took over 40 years for him to do that work and he knew other languages. This is where I get my quotes from for things like other versions (Ethiopian, Arabic, Syriac) and Talmud, Targums, Folios, etc.
Blessings.

Great man, who wasn’t self-educated, btw, I generally check with his views on stuff. Don’t agree with all of it, but most of the time I think he is spot on.



And you know this how, and the scripture support for “creeds” is what?
Blessings.

“Mark makes no claim of inspiration or special revelation from God. He states that it is his belief that each individual Christian will stand before the judgment throne of Christ [2 Corinthians 5:10], and particularly teachers will be judged by their words. [Matthew 12:36, 37; James 3:1, 2] Each is responsible for their own choices in matters of doctrine and Christian worship. He believes that no church, sect, or religious organization has an exclusive on Biblical truth. He has never told a person to leave or join any particular group. He believes there have been "wheat" Christians [or, sheep] scattered all around the world throughout the Gospel Age. [Matthew 13 and 25] Not all Christian teachers have agreed during the past 2,000 years, nor does perfect harmony obtain now at the beginning of the 3rd Millennium. Despite this, Mark believes major Bible truths are self-evident in the Scriptures and that any honest person who reads the Bible without bias, or some sectarian filter, will come to understand those truths taught by Jesus Christ the Nazarene and his inspired disciples.”

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewsuccess.asp?AuthorID=73953 (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewsuccess.asp?AuthorID=73953)

The statement, “Mark believes major Bible truths are self-evident in the Scriptures” is a sign of a cult. This is code that the creeds aren’t needed.

I don't understand your question, "and the scripture support for “creeds” is what?" Are you questioning whether Scripture supports the concept of a statement of faith or if the statement of faith is supported by Scripture.



If any creed is according to scripture, then the person holding to the scripture will be holding such a creed.
Blessings.

Creeds were developed as the Church defended itself against heresy. A Creed is a statement of faith, what it is you believe Scripture says. Without the Creed or statement of faith you don’t know what the person believes the self-evident truths are according to his view.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 08:37 PM
I don’t think Zodhiates is very reliable, I understand he applies “Classical” rules to the “common” Greek, which maybe the cause of some the apparent issues.
Sounds like another one of Ruckman’s fable – however, you do not appear to be a KJVO advocate. I remember the old KJVO fable that Zodhiates’ definitions were Modern Greek;

But let me tell you that you understand incorrectly, because I have been using his stuff since the early 1990’s. Him, AMG are like BDAG, BAGD – highly respected, in fact, those 2 groups are the most respected. Of course, there are detractors, just like there are for Vines,. Kittles, TDNT / TWOT, K&D, Strong’s, BDB, etc. – these are those that in most cases has views that do not line up with the Hebrew and Greek. Of course, there are theological views that have come forth since the first Century that are debated – example, I doubt you find non-Trinitarians that are fond of ones like Zodhiates, TDNT, etc.

If you learned Greek, be assured, while others may consult in you, you will have detractors as well, because the Greek you are reading does not line up with their views.

AMG is (or was headed) by Zodhiates, and is a Group Effort. Classical Greek progressed into Koine Greek (which in turn progressed into Modern Greek). Zodhiates’ work focuses on the Koine Greek always for the definitions – at times, he may refer to Classical or Attic Greek usuage. Languages usually, if not always, evolve.


I think his 50 years experience is do to the fact he was born and raised in Greece. I seen some of his work and the fact he is a dispensational premillennialist is clearly evident in his stuff. That is 50+ years in Koine Greek – if he is not 90 years old yet, he is close to it. I have seen nothing in his works indicating a dispensational slant, or any sort of the John Nelson Darby system (HYPER FUTURISM). As for the views of Centenarians or Millenarians, perhaps that is a “yet-to-happen” way for the Greeks as well that read their ancestral language? For the Hebrew and Greek, I have yet to see any other way feasible in the sense of the Integral of the Bible – others have to depend on Latin and / or English only, and “selective processing” to make their views work. On the human side, I had favored that innovated by Augustine, which was that ‘the golden age’ is currently taking place. But, the Integral Hebrew and Greek of the Bible would not let that be feasible for me, and as I recall, Augustine believed that the ultimate climax of the Second Advent of Christ was going began about circa 1000 A.D., and a lot of people truly believed that back then. Nonetheless, I did enjoy reading Augustine’s work, and he does have some good readings and support for today’s current Biblical. His “crystallizing” things was still enlightening.


Does Zodhiates give you any indication why say the KJV and ESV both translate the passage different than he suggests? I do not recall any mention of ESV. He has mentioned KJV, NASB, and I think, NIV as well. Those are popular ones in the hardcopy sense, while others are used more with Computer Software. He, or at least someone from AMG, is a bit stunned as to why anyone would conclude that the verse meant the things were going to happen soon, as in the sense this time to that time. The KJV did not render it incorrectly – “shortly” is a word for the English before the 12th Century, and if someone thinks it means “soon”, they are restricting “shortly” to just one meaning in the definition (2a):

From the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
Main Entry:shortly
Function:adverb
Date:before 12th century
1 a : in a few words : BRIEFLY b : in an abrupt manner
2 a : in a short time *we will be there shortly* b : at a short interval *shortly after sunset*

So KJV concurs with 1b, (possibly even 2b), or any other Version that uses that word - it up to the English word to look it up in the English dictionary, since that is the point: one language to the English understanding.

Later.

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 08:39 PM
[/color]
Not in the manner you convey it. However, it does not mean one can stop to eat and use the restroom as necessary Actually, the form you are looking for “without delay” is ταχυ <5035 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5035)> {Adverb} – one of the words used for it is “lightly”.
Blessings.

What "manner" am I conveying the usage of the term? What "manner" of “without delay” do you think the term conveys? How many "manners" does the term or concept “without delay” are there and what are they? Regardless the "manner" of the term, do you agree the phrase indicates "without delay"?


[/color]
No, and nor would I. I can tell by the statement that someone’s ideas do align up with the underlying languages of the scriptures, just like those whom say you are not being guided by the HS (something people from the 2 Churches across the street from each other would say to each other {re: correct/change the Greek, etc.}). I’ve been in the Modem world over 15 years – the term “fallacies” (a word used by Atheist for us believers in YHWH) is usually always often used by those whose ideologies are not aligned with the underlying languages of the scriptures, the idioms, and related history, if fact, I do not ever recall seeing otherwise – those of us that stick to the original languages use terms like delusions and fantasy – but here, usually the term “non-Biblical”. Blessings.

Well your education on the subject is incomplete, another reason why one doesn’t seek the advice of a self-educated physician when surgery is required. D.A. Carson is a very well respected professor and scholar. Logical fallacy is a term used to describe an illogical position and has merit in any discussion.


[/color]
Should have bought a book to learn to Greek instead of Carson.
Blessings.
I’m not the one who inexplicably is claiming the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV got basic common Greek grammar wrong or just dropped a word from the text. Perhaps you ought to investigate if your understanding is correct with a professor.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 09:38 PM
Sounds like another one of Ruckman’s fable – however, you do not appear to be a KJVO advocate. I remember the old KJVO fable that Zodhiates’ definitions were Modern Greek;


But let me tell you that you understand incorrectly, because I have been using his stuff since the early 1990’s. Him, AMG are like BDAG, BAGD – highly respected, in fact, those 2 groups are the most respected. Of course, there are detractors, just like there are for Vines,. Kittles, TDNT / TWOT, K&D, Strong’s, BDB, etc. – these are those that in most cases has views that do not line up with the Hebrew and Greek. Of course, there are theological views that have come forth since the first Century that are debated – example, I doubt you find non-Trinitarians that are fond of ones like Zodhiates, TDNT, etc.

If you learned Greek, be assured, while others may consult in you, you will have detractors as well, because the Greek you are reading does not line up with their views.

AMG is (or was headed) by Zodhiates, and is a Group Effort. Classical Greek progressed into Koine Greek (which in turn progressed into Modern Greek). Zodhiates’ work focuses on the Koine Greek always for the definitions – at times, he may refer to Classical or Attic Greek usuage. Languages usually, if not always, evolve.Later.

Do me a favor; get me the opinion of a recognized NT Greek Scholar that endorses his stuff. From what I understand he admits his stuff isn’t for the serious student of Greek. The fundamental issue I have with his stuff is similar to the issue I have with your claim that you have yet to address, which is why did the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV all go brain dead when it came to their rendering of Rev 1:1.




That is 50+ years in Koine Greek – if he is not 90 years old yet, he is close to it. I have seen nothing in his works indicating a dispensational slant, or any sort of the John Nelson Darby system (HYPER FUTURISM). As for the views of Centenarians or Millenarians, perhaps that is a “yet-to-happen” way for the Greeks as well that read their ancestral language? For the Hebrew and Greek, I have yet to see any other way feasible in the sense of the Integral of the Bible – others have to depend on Latin and / or English only, and “selective processing” to make their views work. On the human side, I had favored that innovated by Augustine, which was that ‘the golden age’ is currently taking place. But, the Integral Hebrew and Greek of the Bible would not let that be feasible for me, and as I recall, Augustine believed that the ultimate climax of the Second Advent of Christ was going began about circa 1000 A.D., and a lot of people truly believed that back then. Nonetheless, I did enjoy reading Augustine’s work, and he does have some good readings and support for today’s current Biblical. His “crystallizing” things was still enlightening.
Later.

Right, I hadn’t ever even heard of the guy until I got wrapped up in study course on the book of Revelation at the local Church using the dispensationalist material put out by Kay Arthur. I don’t recall the specifics of the word, but it had to do with one of his word definitions and the definition went something like, “well we know the word means X because Y hasn’t happened.” I have never seen the guy quoted in any serious work or study.



I do not recall any mention of ESV. He has mentioned KJV, NASB, and I think, NIV as well. Those are popular ones in the hardcopy sense, while others are used more with Computer Software. He, or at least someone from AMG, is a bit stunned as to why anyone would conclude that the verse meant the things were going to happen soon, as in the sense this time to that time. The KJV did not render it incorrectly – “shortly” is a word for the English before the 12th Century, and if someone thinks it means “soon”, they are restricting “shortly” to just one meaning in the definition (2a):

From the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
Main Entry:shortly
Function:adverb
Date:before 12th century
1 a : in a few words : BRIEFLY b : in an abrupt manner
2 a : in a short time *we will be there shortly* b : at a short interval *shortly after sunset*

So KJV concurs with 1b, (possibly even 2b), or any other Version that uses that word - it up to the English word to look it up in the English dictionary, since that is the point: one language to the English understanding.

Later.

I’m stunned that AMG is stunned that the phrase, “things which must shortly come to pass” can be viewed in any other way than indicating the things of the vision will begin in short order. How one can attempt to construe, using the definitions you provided, the phrase means when the things begin they will occur in short order is seemingly implausible. Surely, if that is AMG’s claim then you can understand why he isn’t quoted in any serious works. Clearly if the translators were using AMG’s viewpoint they would have rendered the passage something to the effect of, “when things come, they will shortly come to pass”, problem is they didn’t they clearly leverage the 2a & b concepts. The only reason one would be stunned at the clear and obvious meaning is that they held a bias or an A Priori that indicated the clear meaning was simply not possible, regardless the plainness of the phrase. What does Gill say on the phrase?

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 10:02 PM
I believe I’ve limited my comments to, “εν ταχει” which according to Arndt & Gringrich, as a prepositional phrase is used adverbially to convey “without delay” in the Septuagint and writings of Josephus.
Right, and I have more than once explained that this refers to occurrences, processes, etc. e.g. when I clean my car next week, I will do in quickly / without delay. It is where (along with the Greek Kardias) tachycardia comes from - which does not mean that the heart will beat soon, but that it is beating rapidly. As for the bigger picture of Arndt & Gingrich, I do have the bigger picture of pages 814-815 (I’ve had it for a long time) – are you sure you want to continue with the snippets you use of Arndt & Gingrich??? Are you sure you want to go there?


I don’t own the computer I’m communicating to you on, and they have strict rules about what I can and cannot put on the hard-drive. Thanks for the link, I will look through the site.
I prayed that you will get a computer for home. If my computer gets gone, I will always be able to proceed in studies the old fashion way.


Heb 11:11 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Hebrews&chapter=11&verse=11), I have the KJV, ESV and NASB in my office; they all indicate the same thing for the verse. Looks like they all do. Oh, those Bibles do, yes. I was making a point that Bible Translators (notably the ones governed by committees) take unwarranted liberties and do not always render things properly – especially one that clings on the dynamic equivalence method: too easy to slant things. I’ll try this again, with coloring:

“in order to better accommodate our discussion about the Greek in Revelation, which of the following two English Versions do you feel conforms to the Greek Text for Hebrews 11:11 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Hebrews&chapter=11&verse=11)”?

By faith Abraham, even though he was past age— and Sarah herself was barren— was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise. (NIVUS)

By faith Sarah herself also received power for conception of seed, and she bore a child past the normal age, because she regarded Him faithful who had promised. (EMTV)


One of these Bibles is rendering a name which has NO Greek MS Support, RE: ZERO. In fact, Online Bible of Canada, back in the 1990’s, offered $100 to anyone that could show such a Greek MS. In fact, that very same Bible Version, back in those days, I removed all the words in a verse with no underlying Greek words for them, and what I had left, was “Do to the virgin as you wish”!

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Hebrews&chapter=11&verse=11


Redundancy as a point of emphasis is often used. Have you never heard the phrase tell them want you want them to hear, then tell it to them again so the understand. Next time you get a chance head over to your local ball field and listen to the coach talking to his players, I’m pretty sure you will hear him tell the players the same thing repeatedly using a few different words or phrases that are synonymous. The passage you used in question would have fit this scenario perfectly, they were running for their lives. Not in scripture in one sentence, much less one clause.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 11:12 PM
Not for me – I’ve been at this for almost 36 years so that is closed for me as far as my long road of studies is concerned, as it was for Eusebius, and he does not date the composition (completed) of the Book. I do have his works.

Blessings.
---------

Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Chapter 8.

He (Irenaeus) states these things in the third book of his above-mentioned work. In the fifth book he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John, and the number of the name of Antichrist:

"As these things are so, and this number (666) is found in all the approved and ancient copies, and those who saw John face to face confirm it, and reason teaches us that the number of the name of the beast, according to the mode of calculation among the Greeks, appears in its letters...."

And farther on he says concerning the same:

"We are not bold enough to speak confidently of the name of Antichrist. For if it were necessary that his name should be declared clearly at the present time, it would have been announced by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen, not long ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian." He states these things concerning the Apocalypse in the work referred to.


I understand, and you think your view of the common Greek grammar of Rev 1:1 is not a theory. I didn’t say Eusebius dated the book of Revelation.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 7th 2008, 11:20 PM
Right, and I have more than once explained that this refers to occurrences, processes, etc. e.g. when I clean my car next week, I will do in quickly / without delay. It is where (along with the Greek Kardias) tachycardia comes from - which does not mean that the heart will beat soon, but that it is beating rapidly. As for the bigger picture of Arndt & Gingrich, I do have the bigger picture of pages 814-815 (I’ve had it for a long time) – are you sure you want to continue with the snippets you use of Arndt & Gingrich??? Are you sure you want to go there?Blessings.

From which post are you pulling my quotes? Sure, I would love to understand the full section, because what you are suggesting doesn’t make any sense. You are acknowledging the phrase means “without delay” and is connected to occurrences so why you don’t think it can’t be used to describe when the things would commence their occurrence I haven’t a clue. Do you have the capability of scanning them and sending them out in PDF format?



I prayed that you will get a computer for home. If my computer gets gone, I will always be able to proceed in studies the old fashion way.Blessings.
Prayer is a good thing, thank you.



Oh, those Bibles do, yes. I was making a point that Bible Translators (notably the ones governed by committees) take unwarranted liberties and do not always render things properly – especially one that clings on the dynamic equivalence method: too easy to slant things. I’ll try this again, with coloring:

“in order to better accommodate our discussion about the Greek in Revelation, which of the following two English Versions do you feel conforms to the Greek Text for Hebrews 11:11 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Hebrews&chapter=11&verse=11)”?

By faith Abraham, even though he was past age— and Sarah herself was barren— was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise. (NIVUS)

By faith Sarah herself also received power for conception of seed, and she bore a child past the normal age, because she regarded Him faithful who had promised. (EMTV)


One of these Bibles is rendering a name which has NO Greek MS Support, RE: ZERO. In fact, Online Bible of Canada, back in the 1990’s, offered $100 to anyone that could show such a Greek MS. In fact, that very same Bible Version, back in those days, I removed all the words in a verse with no underlying Greek words for them, and what I had left, was “Do to the virgin as you wish”!

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Hebrews&chapter=11&verse=11 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Hebrews&chapter=11&verse=11)

Not in scripture in one sentence, much less one clause.

Blessings.

Thanks, I think I understand your point now but I’m not sure how this helps you. The fact the disparate translation shows up in the link you provided as the odd duck would seems to cut against your logic.



Not in scripture in one sentence, much less one clause.
Blessings.

Sure it is, it is in the very passage in question, which btw, is very similar in concept as when a coach is admonishing his players.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 11:24 PM
“John to the seven churches which are in Asia”? The 7 churches?
Them and everybody else, present at that time, and the further future. The 7 letters were addressed specifically to the Christians in seven regions. Let’s not forgot DSS Revelation, which most of which underlies the Bible Revelation – some Christians believe that the Bible Revelation was a plagiaristic rip-off of DSS Revelation, with some modification and adjustments, and then the insertions of the 7 letters were prepared.


No, I don’t think the "things" would happen without delay before he finished his work, I’m not sure why you think the stuff would happen before he finished his letter and reported to his intended audience what would “quickly” or “soon” come to pass. I don’t understand your logic that the process of receiving and disseminating the information took a long time so that necessarily means John couldn’t have been informing his audience that relief would be coming “without” delay.
You say you want to understand what the verse says, and yet, (in the same posts), you want to defy the language, as well The Greek Language and Grammar Experts, in a manner that you want to change their language. No one has that authority.


It seems to me, based on the internal evidence that the book was written well before your dating.
Before Adam and Eve??? Is this one of those evolution before Adam & Eve. I only said it is possible to the writings may go back to the family of Adam & Eve. For sure, The Seer used the Torah readings, so we know that some of it goes back to the time of Moses.


John A. T. Robinson in his book “Redating the New Testament” commenting of Rev 11:1,2, states, “ It is agreed this passage must bespeak a pre-70 situation” pp240. Are there 7 letters or 1 letter sent in circuit? How do you know when the letters reached the congregations according to Epiphanes a 4th Century bishop of Salamis on the island of Cyprus said John saw the vision in the time of Claudius who reigned between 41 – 54 AD.
Which vision? The Bible Revelation, besides apparently being based so much on DSS Revelation (which remember, exhibits itself as a pre-Christian text), includes documents as sources for conveying things and the visions which are over several decades. Seems if The Seer saw any visions in the 40’s A.D., he must’ve been a teenager considering that Irenaeus talked (in the last 2nd Century) to those whom spoke to the Seer face to face.


I’m not familiar with you comment about the Laodiceans.
Excerpt from Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary Introduction for Revelation:
Its canonicity and inspiration (according to a scholium of ANDREAS OF CAPPADOCIA) are attested by PAPIAS, a hearer of John, and associate of POLYCARP. PAPIAS was bishop of Hierapolis, near Laodicea, one of the seven churches. WORDSWORTH conjectures that a feeling of shame, on account of the rebukes of Laodicea in Revelation, may have operated on the Council of Laodicea, so as to omit Revelation from its list of books to be read publicly(?). The Epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne to the churches of Asia and Phrygia (in EUSEBIUS, [Ecclesiastical History, 5.1-3]), in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius) (A.D. 177) quotes #Re 1:5 3:14 14:4 22:11, as Scripture. CYPRIAN (about A.D. 250) also, in Epistle 13, quotes #Re 2:5 as Scripture; and in Epistle 25 he quotes #Re 3:21, as of the same authority as the Gospel. (For other instances, see ALFORD’S Prolegomena, from whom mainly this summary of evidence has been derived).


Again, regarding the nominative and dative nouns, so what, I’ve shown that “εν ταχει” is used adverbially to mean “without delay”. According to A&G, “ταχος” is used to indicate “speed, quickness, swiftness, haste” which seems to me to be within the range of “without delay”.

"So what"??? Now that too, tells me something. And we are not referring to “ταχος”, we are referring to “εν ταχει”.


Why, according to Arndt and Gingrich it does, 4th Edition “A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature” pp 814-815. OK, how does “out of the blue” help your argument? Unanticipated doesn’t necessarily mean speed, it seems you’ve shown that a word can convey more than one thought.
For now, I will refrain from commentary since I will await to catch up and see your response to my previous post. But, please, give the folks online here some credit, when they see you say so little, and make a reference such as “pp 814-815”, they may wonder, is this a small (e.g. one sentence) CONTEXT that starts near the end of page 814 and the sentence goes over to the beginning page 815, or we getting a snippet of a larger picture since 2 page numbers are given here?

I’ll be back σινδωμα.;)

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 8th 2008, 12:17 AM
Them and everybody else, present at that time, and the further future. The 7 letters were addressed specifically to the Christians in seven regions. Let’s not forgot DSS Revelation, which most of which underlies the Bible Revelation – some Christians believe that the Bible Revelation was a plagiaristic rip-off of DSS Revelation, with some modification and adjustments, and then the insertions of the 7 letters were prepared.

Blessings.

It is your view, or theory if you will, that the passage is for everyone else, that isn’t what the author wrote, although undoubtedly it applied to other Christians living within the general area yet were not apart of those specific congregations. The principles of the book are for the future ages, but the impending relief the book promised was for those who shared in tribulation of the author. I’m not familiar with the “DSS Revelation” as far as I know the book was included in the 1st canon of Scripture used to dispute Marcion back in 144AD.



You say you want to understand what the verse says, and yet, (in the same posts), you want to defy the language, as well The Greek Language and Grammar Experts, in a manner that you want to change their language. No one has that authority.
Blessings.

I’m not defying the language or the grammar, I’m defying your theory of that grammar in application to what Rev 1:1 was intended to convey. I’ve got 18 or so solid translations that back up my point of view along with the immediate context of the verse in question.




Before Adam and Eve??? Is this one of those evolution before Adam & Eve. I only said it is possible to the writings may go back to the family of Adam & Eve. For sure, The Seer used the Torah readings, so we know that some of it goes back to the time of Moses.Blessings.

Well I suppose if Domitian predated Adam and Eve, then you might be onto something. Just because the author used Jewish symbolism doesn’t mean it was written during the time of Moses. What is your point?



Which vision? The Bible Revelation, besides apparently being based so much on DSS Revelation (which remember, exhibits itself as a pre-Christian text), includes documents as sources for conveying things and the visions which are over several decades. Seems if The Seer saw any visions in the 40’s A.D., he must’ve been a teenager considering that Irenaeus talked (in the last 2nd Century) to those whom spoke to the Seer face to face.Blessings.

Well, I think the Irenaeus passage is debatable but we are talking about the vision that is commonly known as the book of Revelation are we not? Perhaps or Irenaeus had his facts wrong, the point is that the dating of the book was in question even back then.




Excerpt from Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary Introduction for Revelation:
Its canonicity and inspiration (according to a scholium of ANDREAS OF CAPPADOCIA) are attested by PAPIAS, a hearer of John, and associate of POLYCARP. PAPIAS was bishop of Hierapolis, near Laodicea, one of the seven churches. WORDSWORTH conjectures that a feeling of shame, on account of the rebukes of Laodicea in Revelation, may have operated on the Council of Laodicea, so as to omit Revelation from its list of books to be read publicly(?). The Epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne to the churches of Asia and Phrygia (in EUSEBIUS, [Ecclesiastical History, 5.1-3]), in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius) (A.D. 177) quotes #Re 1:5 3:14 14:4 22:11, as Scripture. CYPRIAN (about A.D. 250) also, in Epistle 13, quotes #Re 2:5 as Scripture; and in Epistle 25 he quotes #Re 3:21, as of the same authority as the Gospel. (For other instances, see ALFORD’S Prolegomena, from whom mainly this summary of evidence has been derived).Blessings.
What post did you lift my question from; I can’t track back and follow the logic of why this above statement has any relevance to the argument.



"So what"??? Now that too, tells me something. And we are not referring to “ταχος”, we are referring to “εν ταχει”.
Blessings.

That is my point,



For now, I will refrain from commentary since I will await to catch up and see your response to my previous post. But, please, give the folks online here some credit, when they see you say so little, and make a reference such as “pp 814-815”, they may wonder, is this a small (e.g. one sentence) CONTEXT that starts near the end of page 814 and the sentence goes over to the beginning page 815, or we getting a snippet of a larger picture since 2 page numbers are given here?
Blessings.

I’m not attempting to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. Is the quote referenced in the source I quoted? If it is then it explains why the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV all translated the passage the way they did.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 8th 2008, 01:23 AM
Sure it is, your theory is based on how you think the grammar applies to Koine Greek. Clearly how you think the rules apply wasn’t held by the translators of the mainline English translations that I provided. Which means your claim is just that, in fact the term theory might be a bit of a stretch. Obviously there is something you are missing because the folks who translated the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV to name a few didn’t drop the preposition when they translated the passage.
I have done covered this ground – it is not a theory, it is Koine Greek and the grammar. None of the teachers of Fluent Greek and its Grammar would buy into your view.


Here is another guy’s take on it. The guy has a formable back-ground in the original languages and is a graduate of a very prestigious Seminary.
1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>). (ESV)The phrase “that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place” and the phrase “the time is near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>)” are tightly bound by context. So it just won’t do to say that the lexical range of <φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ> permits a meaning that at some far off (from the time of writing of Revelation) time a complex of events will happen quickly, rather than that the complex of events will happen in the near future of the time of writing. Thanks for the link. In the manner you see this, does not concur with the Greeks and their grammar, nor the others familiar with it and the grammarians as well. I will note again, that a lot of English Bible Versions that come out today use previous English Bible Versions as a ‘starting point’, then refer to a Greek New Testament for variants, and adjust the text of the older used Bible accordingly. If there are no variants for a given verse, they will leave the verse untouched, unless the Bible Version they are using is so old it may require an update for a word or two. In the case of ESV, the English Bible they used as a starting point was the 1971 RSV, so “word updates” for verses with no variant readings were not likely to be touched: I do not have the 1971 Edition of RSV, but have the 1947 one, so I cannot compare them.

http://www.esv.org/translation/manuscripts


OK, then the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV didn’t have the bias you suggested I had when disputing your claim. Why then did they all translate the passage contrary to what you claim the grammar of Koine Greek will only allow? I haven’t caught up to your comment on 2 Peter or Psalms yet.

Well, as shown in one of the previous posts, the KJV (and I’ll add NKJV here) gives a fair translation, when we do not restrict the meaning of “shortly” that is in the English definition (I gave a small abridged version);

As for those like ESV and NASB, well, they will have no problem with the word “soon” because they refer to 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4, so for them, it has only been less than 2 days in God’s view (or something like that) – I saw one translator’s note to that effect.


You really need to get your hands on a copy of Carson’s book, especially if you are going to advise folks on how to learn and use common Greek of the 1st Century. I believe I will refer them to a teaching book (or online) for Learning the Koine Greek first. I refer to the Greek experts all the time. Otherwise, I like studying texts of the earlier times of my Christian culture – Early Christian Writers were not always in agreement with each other, but they have their antiquity value, and we can know about things going on during their times.

As for Carson and others, I believe the catch would be to learn the Greek first (and possibly the Hebrew), and then get other extras if they want – be it Carson, or whomever. Of course, I do have a lot of books on my computer, as Online Bible modules as well. I use them as referencing material and word and phrase searching.


It is your claim in how the rules of grammar are used for common Greek, which is your understanding of the rules, which is your theory of the rules. I must not be the only one that got them mixed up because the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV all rendered the passage with the same concept of “soon”. It is not my theory, it is education in other languages, just as it would be in any other language - be it Spanish, Chinese, French, Italian, Russian, Japanese, or whatever.


Scholars?
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=663 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=663) Thanks for the link. I have studied stuff of those natures since the last Century, and have a variety of books, containing the same contexts and like-graphs (e.g. Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine). On the web page you give, I concur much with “IV. Dynamic Equivalence Vs. Formal Equivalence” section. BTW, there are other Equivalence methods that have been employed and are being employed lately for English Bibles - including a newer one. I do not agree with what starts out in “Section V: Which Translation Is Best?” that says “Second, one of the best safeguards you can follow is to stay away from the sectarian translations or those done by an individual.” The “sectarian translations”, yes, as well as those with committees. Those done by Individuals in the past history may have slanted some things, but those today not so much. The ALT Bible gives alternative readings in its verse, and Web Site provides a wealth of info, and all the significant variants of the NT there.

BTW, in the Bible Chat forum, someone pointed out a reading in ESV that indicated you had to work for your salvation. None of us could defend the reading. Of course, like any other Bible, that does not mean ALL verses are rendered poorly.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 8th 2008, 01:51 AM
Well then why would you suggest, “I find it unlikely that any translators or any person well acquainted or fluent in Hebrew and Greek would subscribe to the Alcazar System or any off-shoot of it.”
I have covered this ground. But one thing I need to note here: If you have adopted Alcazar’s system, as I recall, that is not permitted in this forum. This is the “end-times” forum, not the “past-times” forum ;) They have a wide variety of forums for everybody. I think you need to go to the “Controversial Issues” forum, but I think you have to have so many posts and / or days here before you can access that forum. I recommend you go to the CHAT TO THE MODERATORS forum and ask them what forum you can discuss views on the Alcazar system – what is it that folks following that system term themselves these days? “Pantelists”, “Hyper-Preterists”, “Full Preterists”, or 2 or more of the above? Give the moderators those three terms so they understand you;

Also, if this is the case, I know of a setting that you can share such views on the internet and postings (in ALL Groups) with more people, like “Pastor Dave” (he’s in Florida USA – years ago he called me a few times for software help, and lately of here, I saw he was still espousing the Alcazar system, but there were some others as well) – The rules here do not allow me to post those links, but I can PM them to you - you may have to sign up for a gMail acct. to post messages – it might not have all the glamour this board does, but it appears you are not into that, but simple text messaging[?];

Of course, you know there is more to the Bible than eschatology, correct? Oh, of course you do! ;)


The nexus between your question and the discussion would seem to be based on my insistence that the translators who rendered the passage to convey the events would be happening “soon” or without delay would seem to indicate you believed one arguing my position was because I had adopted Alcazar’s system, yet when I ask you directly if you think the translators who rendered the passage that I’m supporting would subscribe to that position you suggest it unlikely. I don’t get your argument? You need to give me a logical reason why the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV all rendered the passage with the same concept of “soon”. No, just like any other translation that provides a poor rendering, disputed / interpolated / conflated passages, you are just taking “advantage” of those, in a manner that they do not intend.

I’m in the U.S.A. too.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 8th 2008, 03:04 AM
I have done covered this ground – it is not a theory, it is Koine Greek and the grammar. None of the teachers of Fluent Greek and its Grammar would buy into your view.Blessings.

You denial that your view is a theory appears Pecksniffian. You haven’t covered the ground because you have not explained why the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV rendered the passage in a way you claim the grammar rules will not allow.



Thanks for the link. In the manner you see this, does not concur with the Greeks and their grammar, nor the others familiar with it and the grammarians as well. I will note again, that a lot of English Bible Versions that come out today use previous English Bible Versions as a ‘starting point’, then refer to a Greek New Testament for variants, and adjust the text of the older used Bible accordingly. If there are no variants for a given verse, they will leave the verse untouched, unless the Bible Version they are using is so old it may require an update for a word or two. In the case of ESV, the English Bible they used as a starting point was the 1971 RSV, so “word updates” for verses with no variant readings were not likely to be touched: I do not have the 1971 Edition of RSV, but have the 1947 one, so I cannot compare them.

http://www.esv.org/translation/manuscripts (http://www.esv.org/translation/manuscripts)
Blessings.

So IOW, according to you they just jumbled the stuff up to fit their preconceived paradigm? Didn’t want to touch the argument I see. According to the claim in the forward of the ESV I have they based the translation on the “1993 edition of the Greek New Testament, (4th corrected ed.) published by the United Bible Societies (UBS) and Novum Testamentmentum Graece (27th ed) edited by Nestle and Aland. Thanks for the link, but I think your conclusion they based the translation on an English Bible is a bit of a reach, http://www.esv.org/translation/preface (http://www.esv.org/translation/preface)
"To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text."



Well, as shown in one of the previous posts, the KJV (and I’ll add NKJV here) gives a fair translation, when we do not restrict the meaning of “shortly” that is in the English definition (I gave a small abridged version)

As for those like ESV and NASB, well, they will have no problem with the word “soon” because they refer to 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4, so for them, it has only been less than 2 days in God’s view (or something like that) – I saw one translator’s note to that effect. Blessings.

Again, I don’t think the above answered the question, “Why then did they all translate the passage contrary to what you claim the grammar of Koine Greek will only allow?” Above you just claimed the rendering, “1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is
near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>). (ESV)” Isn’t in any Greek texts yet now you suggest the very same language that appears in the KJV, is correct?

“Restriction” the definition you attempted to apply didn’t make any sense at all, as I pointed out.






I believe I will refer them to a teaching book (or online) for Learning the Koine Greek first. I refer to the Greek experts all the time. Otherwise, I like studying texts of the earlier times of my Christian culture – Early Christian Writers were not always in agreement with each other, but they have their antiquity value, and we can know about things going on during their times.

As for Carson and others, I believe the catch would be to learn the Greek first (and possibly the Hebrew), and then get other extras if they want – be it Carson, or whomever. Of course, I do have a lot of books on my computer, as Online Bible modules as well. I use them as referencing material and word and phrase searching.
Blessings.

The comment wasn’t intended for someone wanting to learn Greek the comment was intended for one who claims to know the subject yet apparently hasn’t troubled himself to understand the pitfalls and fallacies associated with interpreting the common Greek yet still willing to pass judgment upon the work of others.



It is not my theory, it is education in other languages, just as it would be in any other language - be it Spanish, Chinese, French, Italian, Russian, Japanese, or whatever.Blessings.

Like I said, you need a copy of Carson’s book to round out your education, perhaps then you will recognize you claim as a theory.



Thanks for the link. I have studied stuff of those natures since the last Century, and have a variety of books, containing the same contexts and like-graphs (e.g. Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine). On the web page you give, I concur much with “IV. Dynamic Equivalence Vs. Formal Equivalence” section. BTW, there are other Equivalence methods that have been employed and are being employed lately for English Bibles - including a newer one. I do not agree with what starts out in “Section V: Which Translation Is Best?” that says “Second, one of the best safeguards you can follow is to stay away from the sectarian translations or those done by an individual.” The “sectarian translations”, yes, as well as those with committees. Those done by Individuals in the past history may have slanted some things, but those today not so much. The ALT Bible gives alternative readings in its verse, and Web Site provides a wealth of info, and all the significant variants of the NT there.

BTW, in the Bible Chat forum, someone pointed out a reading in ESV that indicated you had to work for your salvation. None of us could defend the reading. Of course, like any other Bible, that does not mean ALL verses are rendered poorly.

Blessings.

I’m glad you enjoyed the link, however you’re BTW comment is another logical fallacy.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 8th 2008, 03:24 AM
I have covered this ground. But one thing I need to note here: If you have adopted Alcazar’s system, as I recall, that is not permitted in this forum. This is the “end-times” forum, not the “past-times” forum They have a wide variety of forums for everybody. I think you need to go to the “Controversial Issues” forum, but I think you have to have so many posts and / or days here before you can access that forum. I recommend you go to the CHAT TO THE MODERATORS forum and ask them what forum you can discuss views on the Alcazar system – what is it that folks following that system term themselves these days? “Pantelists”, “Hyper-Preterists”, “Full Preterists”, or 2 or more of the above? Give the moderators those three terms so they understand you;
Blessings.

No you haven’t, when I pointed out the conflict your claim had with all those translations one of you 1st questions was if I had adopted Alcazar’s system, well if my argument lead you to believe I had adopted a certain system why wouldn’t those who translated the passage that conveys what it is you think is indicative of that system likewise have adopted that system?

That you for your explaination but I don’t subscribe nor do I consider myself, a ““Pantelists”, “Hyper-Preterists”, “Full Preterists”, or 2 or more of the above?” Frankly I find it odd that you would even suggest such a thing.




Also, if this is the case, I know of a setting that you can share such views on the internet and postings (in ALL Groups) with more people, like “Pastor Dave” (he’s in Florida USA – years ago he called me a few times for software help, and lately of here, I saw he was still espousing the Alcazar system, but there were some others as well) – The rules here do not allow me to post those links, but I can PM them to you - you may have to sign up for a gMail acct. to post messages – it might not have all the glamour this board does, but it appears you are not into that, but simple text messaging[?];Blessings.

This is really funny, it appears that by just pointing out your argument isn’t logically founded indicates to you I am unorthodox.


Of course, you know there is more to the Bible than eschatology, correct? Oh, of course you do! Blessings.
Thanks,



No, just like any other translation that provides a poor rendering, disputed / interpolated / conflated passages, you are just taking “advantage” of those, in a manner that they do not intend.
Blessings.
How so? You now know how the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV all intended the folks who read their translations to understand the passages they read? You somehow think they didn’t think the reader would understand the text for its face value content? Seems to me, rather than Greek grammar your argument really rests on your preconceived view of what the passage must then mean.



I’m in the U.S.A. too.Blessings.
I figured as much, I don’t think the export Tyson chicken.
PaulT

Clifton
Mar 8th 2008, 03:56 AM
Some did some didn’t, some saw Rev 20 as entirely future, some saw it as a current reality. Do you think all of orthodoxy in the 1st couple of centuries were chiliasts? I don’t know how you think it is a fact that all the folks down through the ages heard the verses differently. Although the term, “heard” does have a range of meanings so I suppose we both could have a point.
Early Christian Writings (and I have tons of them) I have read saw the futuristic of the book – they knew Christ would return but, like Justin Martyr, did not expect this in their lifetime, especially given their ideas about “6 days of Creation = 6000 years of Creation”, then rest, the 7th day (7000th year and forward) – they saw it as something after the Earth was about 6000 years old – the current year in Israel is 5768, supposedly starting with day one of creation – if that is so, we’re looking at about 222 more years before the ultimate climax of the Second Advent of Christ;

Much of the Bible Revelation uses phrases to that the effect from the Tanak (Old Testament), New Testament, Sources from early in the 1st Century, Neronic, Vespian, and Domitian time, and The pseudepigrapha (Charles showed in his work that without a knowledge of The Pseudepigrapha it would be impossible to understand The Seer.). For sources, Charles’ has a critical apparatus, but has some short notes in the preface of Vol 1. I gave you two links before to see the references sources and charts of parallels. I gave you a post reference link to quickly access that post – so let’s do it one more time:

Do not worry about not being able to read Greek or Hebrew – the chart on the second page, (VII) has the verse numbers in English – Example:

1:18 *GREEK WORDS HERE* | Dan 431 (q ,) 12:7, 1 Enoch 5:1

We see here in this example, that Revelation 1:18 is drawn from Daniel 4:31 (limited to one {group of} MS) and 1 Enoch 5:1.

Here’s the links again:

VI. Greek and Hebrew Sources, and their Dates, (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-%20VI.htm)

VII. Books of the O.T., of the Pseudepigrapha, and of the N.T. used by our author. (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-VII.htm)


I don’t understand you argument you just indicated, “throughout history, other Christians were teaching, hearing, and learning the verse differently than others did” Different MS – Different Readings, Different Versions (i.e. Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopian, etc.).

Evidently, they were all hearing the Greek the same way, eh? Why don’t we stick with Rev 1:1 for now? How do you know that all Christians down through the ages heard something different about Rev 1:1. They were hearing GREEK the same away, but see first paragraph, “Different MS…”, and as noted there, they were not all hearing it in Greek. For the Arabic, and Revelation 1:1, it was “things to occur speedily in future ages”. I did a lot of studies regarding MSS, etc. in the past two decades and try to keep up with new discoveries as well, like the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. For a facsimile of “the other number of the beast, 616” see:

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast616.htm


The fact the early Church up until the time of Irenaeus were all anticipating the imminent return of Christ would seem to invalidate your claim or as I suggested earlier make you claim problematic. As noted above, and in the ECW (Early Christian Writers) texts I have read, they “believed” in the return of Christ, but did not expect in their lifetime – obviously so, since there was not that much time between the Resurrection of Christ and their time.


Truly, I am enjoying the discussion; however, given your frame of reference couldn’t the term be synonymous? You are joking, right? How do you figure 2 different regions to be “synonymous”?


Why would I need to the translations that I use are in agreement, and as far as I know the disparate translators of those translations didn’t need to prop up their translation based on some bogus argument. Rev 1:1 rendered “without delay” makes sense to me. Yes, but it is too bad you do not place it in its proper context, and I know of no translation that renders it that way – of course, so there is many, so perhaps you have or will find one.

Tomorrow.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 8th 2008, 10:39 AM
Early Christian Writings
(and I have tons of them) I have read saw the futuristic of the book – they knew Christ would return but, like Justin Martyr, did not expect this in their lifetime, especially given their ideas about “6 days of Creation = 6000 years of Creation”, then rest, the 7th day (7000th year and forward) – they saw it as something after the Earth was about 6000 years old – the current year in Israel is 5768, supposedly starting with day one of creation – if that is so, we’re looking at about 222 more years before the ultimate climax of the Second Advent of Christ;Blessings.

A view that the Rev 1:1 indicates the prophecy would be fulfilled soon does not necessarily mean the 2nd Advent occurred in the 1st Century. As Gill tells you the stuff began back then. You have heard of the Amillennial and Postmillennial positions correct?

Nevertheless, up until Hippolytus and Ireneaus, all the ECF’s believed the return of Christ was imminent, IOW they were expecting His return at any moment. However, even Hippy saw Rev 20:3 as a then existing reality. The 6000 year idea is a straw-man. Barnabas was talking about the Jewish view of the holy day.



Much of the Bible Revelation uses phrases to that the effect from the Tanak (Old Testament), New Testament, Sources from early in the 1st Century, Neronic, Vespian, and Domitian time, and The pseudepigrapha (Charles showed in his work that without a knowledge of The Pseudepigrapha it would be impossible to understand The Seer.). For sources, Charles’ has a critical apparatus, but has some short notes in the preface of Vol 1. I gave you two links before to see the references sources and charts of parallels. I gave you a post reference link to quickly access that post – so let’s do it one more time:Blessings.

Well since the Tanak is a part of the Bible Revelation I would suspect that it uses many of the phrases of the Tanak, like all of them. What are you talking about? Who is Charles; you are telling me the author who told his audience that if they paid attention they would understand who the number of the beast represented needed an additional book to really “understand” it? Doesn’t sound like a very sound argument? Hey if you pay attention you will understand, oops I forgot to tell you, you need to reference this other book that I didn’t write.



Do not worry about not being able to read Greek or Hebrew – the chart on the second page, (VII) has the verse numbers in English – Example:

1:18 *GREEK WORDS HERE* | Dan 431 (q ,) 12:7, 1 Enoch 5:1

We see here in this example, that Revelation 1:18 is drawn from Daniel 4:31 (limited to one {group of} MS) and 1 Enoch 5:1.

Here’s the links again:

VI. Greek and Hebrew Sources, and their Dates, (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-%20VI.htm)

VII. Books of the O.T., of the Pseudepigrapha, and of the N.T. used by our author. (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-VII.htm)

Different MS – Different Readings, Different Versions (i.e. Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopian, etc.)Blessings.
Thanks, but based on the premise you suggested Charles used, it doesn’t sound like he had a very well reasoned argument, I think I’ll pass.



Different MS – Different Readings, Different Versions (i.e. Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopian, etc.).
They were hearing GREEK the same away, but see first paragraph, “Different MS…”, and as noted there, they were not all hearing it in Greek. For the Arabic, and Revelation 1:1, it was “things to occur speedily in future ages”. I did a lot of studies regarding MSS, etc. in the past two decades and try to keep up with new discoveries as well, like the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. For a facsimile of “the other number of the beast, 616” see:

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast616.htm (http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast616.htm)
Blessings.

I fear you are making another leap, As Gill points out the things began back then and will be concluded in future ages, for if the things weren’t to begin the time wasn’t very near them, eh?



As noted above, and in the ECW (Early Christian Writers) texts I have read, they “believed” in the return of Christ, but did not expect in their lifetime – obviously so, since there was not that much time between the Resurrection of Christ and their time.Blessings.

Yes, you made the above assertion, but I haven’t a clue as to what you are basing your assessment upon. The ECF’s prior to Hippy and Irenaeus were expecting Christ to return immediately. J. Barton Payne in his book, “The Imminent Appearing of Christ” states, “…the ante-Nicene fathers believed that the persecutions they were enduring at the hands of Imperial Rome could be those of the final tribulation, and that therefore the Lord’s appearing to rule could be imminent” p 17.



You are joking, right? How do you figure 2 different regions to be “synonymous”? Blessings.

Perhaps or perhaps not, it is hard to tell because you didn’t provide more than the above comment and I don’t know which post the comment was used in, so I don’t know the contextual setting the comment was made in.



Yes, but it is too bad you do not place it in its proper context, and I know of no translation that renders it that way – of course, so there is many, so perhaps you have or will find one.
Blessings.

Your bias is showing through, the context I’m using “without delay” in makes perfect sense to me, is supported by the translations I’ve pointed out, is consistent with the immediate context of the passages as well with the expectations of the ECF’s. Perhaps if you weren’t forcing your bias on the passage then maybe the exception to your common Greek grammar theory would pop out at you. Again, if the passage doesn’t mean the stuff would “soon” begin, why did Gill write, “not that they would all be fulfilled in a short space of time, for there are some things not fulfilled yet,… but the sense is, that these things should very quickly begin to be fulfilled, and from thenceforward go on fulfilling till all were accomplished.”?http://www.biblestudytools.net/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=re&chapter=001&verse=001&next=002&prev=020

Yah think he had bought into Alcazar's system?
PaulT

Clifton
Mar 9th 2008, 02:13 PM
Thanks, but I think the target was 2nd Temple Judaism although Rome was in play becasue that along with 2nd Temple Judaism was one of the 2 oppressors of the early Church.

That would be impossible since the Bible Revelation was not totally compiled (of recent and long aged documents and sources) until beyond Vespasian’s time. The Seer "transfers himself in thought to the time of Vespasian, interpreting past events under the form of a prophecy, after the manner of apocalyptic writers" (Swete). Such a procedure belongs to Jewish apocalyptic but not to Christian, until we advance well into the 2nd century.

Sorry, but you’re “thinking” is governed by a system invented in the 16th Century, further innovated in the 19th Century, and even more so after 1970, to counter the “doomsday” prophets – and after all, the schools of hyper-futurism does the same things hyper-preterism does – reshapes and rewrites scriptures, disjoints snippets from their context via “selecting processing” (picking snippets of verses here and there, thereby forcing a change of context), to fix (aka “support”) their views – same thing as done with many religions and systems – it is nothing new under our sun.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 9th 2008, 02:17 PM
While Gill does comment on "future ages" doesn't he suggest the things began then? Again, if Gill suggests the stuff that is currently going on will as well go on in future ages, how do you know the Arabics wouldn't have understood it the same way Gill and I do?

I have no idea of what you are trying to say – this looks like a context change – perhaps you forgot? Gill just mentioned as follows in his expository (note that the word “sixteen” has been updated to “nineteen”):

to show unto his servant things which must shortly come to pass: the Arabic version adds, "in future ages"; things that were to be hereafter, the accomplishment of which was necessary, because of the certain and unalterable decree of God, the good of his people, and his own glory; and these were to come to pass quickly, in a very little time; not that they would all be fulfilled in a short space of time, for there are some things not fulfilled yet, though it is nineteen hundred years ago and more, since this revelation was made; and we are sure there are some things that will not be accomplished till a thousand years hence, and more, for the millennium is not yet begun; and after that is ended, there is to be a second resurrection, and a destruction of the Gog and Magog army; but the sense is, that these things should very quickly begin to be fulfilled, and from thenceforward go on fulfilling till all were accomplished. Now to show, to represent these things, in a clear manner, as the nature of them would admit of, to the servants of Christ, all true believers, read and hear and diligently observe them, and especially to the ministers of the Gospel, whose business is to search into them, and point them out to and particularly to his servant John, was this revelation made by Christ, who immediately answered this end: * END OF QUOTE *

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 9th 2008, 02:27 PM
The ? was for the analytical, where is your analytical which conceivably would have taken into account this argument,
It is not an argument on my side – I am looking at the Greek, but for someone that depends on the Alcazar system, they have to depend on English, because the reality of it, is that system does not conform to the Hebrew and Greek in the “integral” sense of scriptures.

As for ALT Bible (Analytic-Literal Translation), we have already gone over that. Version 2 is available for the e-Sword Software. You conveyed that you are at work and cannot the download that and the necessary software. Even before that, I gave you the website for ALT. I’ll do it again:
http://www.dtl.org (http://www.dtl.org/)

For background info:
http://www.dtl.org/alt/



1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>). (ESV)The phrase “that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place” and the phrase “the time is near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>)” are tightly bound by context. So it just won’t do to say that the lexical range of <φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ> permits a meaning that at some far off (from the time of writing of Revelation) time a complex of events will happen quickly, rather than that the complex of events will happen in the near future of the time of writing. This does not conform to the Greek or its grammar, and there is nothing in the Greek that conforms that v.1 and v.3 are “tightly” bound, otherwise it would have been “along” with the verse in the first place – it appears you do not understand εγγυς <1451 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1451)> very well, and have put some restriction on it. Remember, we are talking about Greek here – what you present is just a spin for later man-invented systems: snippets disjointed from the contexts – a person showed me back in the BBS Network Conference DOS days how a person could come up with a suicide doctrine by employing such methods. This is why in the local arena as a writer in the past, I love context, and I also love being acquainted with the underlying languages and being able to refer to them – there is little room for attack this way.


No doubt, as those who have all used the historical-grammatical approach down through the ages.
Ah, but we are talking about the primary Greek New Testaments available in print and for computer software, and online. But, if you want to talk about other versions, be it Arabic, Ethiopic, Latin, or Syrian, that is cool. :cool:


Well, I believe there is reason to believe is was written pre-Domitian, but yes I think the original audience was those living at the time that shared the tribulation with John. Separate entity? You think the author photocopied what chapter 4 on and just attached that to each scroll that contained the specific text for each of the individual churches contemplated?
As pointed out, more than once, the texts were penned a long time before the collection was almost completed, or completed, on up to the mid 90’s A.D. – some text is lost to us, which I went into within this thread in another post. Antipas (Revelation 2:13 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Revelation&chapter=2&verse=13)), Christ’s Faithful Martyr according to the text in red, was a Bishop (83-92 A.D.) during the time of Domitian (81-96 A.D.) was seen as the proto-martyr of what was “yet to come”. But I would not say “it was all collected any later than 92 A.D”., after all, there is more text ;)


No offense taken, do you think the churches were fictional? My understanding is that the style of writing back then was in scroll form. I don’t think the author sent out 7 copies of chapters four through 22 and then a single copy of each individual churches message. I think it more likely that the letter was written to 7 real churches who were actually encountering the issues discussed and then each church copied the document and sent the original on. The term “churches” is used in Rev 1:4.
That is not what I said or implied. I have answered that in detail in the post. Also, I think, IF, the 7 letters were sent out at all before the Seer died, they were sent out to peoples of those 7 regions separately. After all, the parallels between the Bible Revelation and DSS Revelation (which from my studies, would place later than 69 B.C.) are uncanny, thus, believers already had much of that text for over a century (at least, if not 2 to 3 centuries), and it is virtually, a text underlying the Bible Revelation.


Did I refer to a building? What did you think I meant? I think the churches referred to in 1:4, which btw identies the audience as the “seven churches” (plural) were different groups of believers in each of the different towns identified. Each group of believers was a local church therefore when the term is used to identify “churches” the author is identifiying the different groups of believers scattered about. Again, the term church can be used to identify the spiritual universal church of Christ, the entire body of believers or it can mean the local group of believers as in the “church of Ephesus”. If the letter was intended for 2 groups of believers say one in Ephesus and one in say Smyrna then the plural form of the word would be appropriate, correct?. Oh, btw, regarding the building I think recent archeological evidence indicates there were separate and distinct buildings used for Christian synagogues as opposed the Jewish synagogues in the 1st Century, which may or may not have been single individual family dwellings. If the letters were sent before The Seer’s death, they would have “individually” been sent to seven regions, since each region had a letter unique for specifically them. There would be no reason to send the other letters to all of the churches, otherwise, one or more of them regions would say, “We have not done this, etc.”; There are passages in the letters to indicate that the letters were to be read “before” an event, or events took place (e.g. 2:5, 10, etc.), since warnings were intact.


Surely you jest, parsing over church versus congregation? What makes you think they flourished over time. Have you ever read up on the mathematical progressions required for Christianity to take over the Roman empire, to become the conventional wisdom of the day replacing paganism in a couple of hundred years? Methinks you are rather naïve regarding the depth, breadth and speed, (I trust you understand the meaning of the word I’m attempting to convey) with which the Gospel spread across the known world by say 55 – 60 AD or so. According to Paul, prior to the end of his life, the Gospel had spread throughout the entire world. Don’t quite follow you here – I am aware that the Gospel spread across the known world – what I was addressing was the ‘assembling’ of believers. You do not have to assemble to be a believer after hearing the Gospel, though Hebrews 10 encourages that, but Hebrews was not in a canon until the 2nd Century.


Well I don’t think I ever suggested Eusebius wrote Revelation.
Never said you did.


My illustration of the Churches attention to the detail of Christ’s words had to do with the relevance of the intended audience the passage was meant for.
Yea, seven letters, seven regions of audiences. Outside of the seven letters, we are the audience – however, we can learn from the seven letters.


“Early Christian historians Eusebius and Epiphanius claim that prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70 the Jerusalem Christians fled to the Decapolis city of Pella (note also Mark 13:14; Matt 24:15; Lu 21:20-22; cf. 19:43-44).”

http://www.wheaton.edu/DistanceLearning/Pella.htm (http://www.wheaton.edu/DistanceLearning/Pella.htm)
Yes, I am aware of this – I have files and works in reference to that. I used it in USENET a few years ago in corresponding to the HYPER-FUTURISTS. The HYPER business appears to be a real issue … if folks are not “taking things in the past and combining them into things yet to occur”, others are “taking things yet to happen and combing them into events already past” – re: replacement theology; not properly dividing the scriptures. Both Hyper Modes requires scriptural rewrites.


You will recall the comment was made in reference to the audience intended by the author? Whoever it pleased in history, it certainly pleased the Christians who heeded Christ’s warning.
According to the texts I have, not a single Christian was harm because they heeded Christ’s warning.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 9th 2008, 02:34 PM
What you perceive to be correct is a theory. Do you now understand why I’m suggesting your view is a theory?
Not theory – Koine Greek and Grammar, just like if someone learned English, they would learn the grammar and use the English Dictionaries. There is no other way to read the verse in Greek other than what it says. And yes, I understand why you suggesting my “view” is theory, that is what all people that depend on home-made doctrines like the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Alcazar system utters. So, I guess you suggest all the people of Greece walking around “speak in unknown tongues (theories)” when they speak, and have spoken in their own “biased” language :lol:


Do you have a for instance? IOW, can you produce an argument from someone who translated the passage rendering a view of “without delay” or “soon” that uses a similar argument as Wilbur Pickering? Where are you getting that my view equates to a “2 days yet” point of view, my view is that the phrase in question means what the translators indicate it means, without delay, I’m not suggesting words need be inserted, that is a red herring on your part. Again, I am looking at the Greek, so it is not an issue for me. Thus, since you have a different reading other than what the Greek actually says, as I have already express, it is up to you to contact them and / or study their notes, web sites, etc. just like it would be for any other ethnic group that did a Bible version in their language. When I spoke to translators, it was not about any of their verse renderings. To be best of my knowledge, the travesty is only for Latin and English readers.

As for the rest of your comments, I have already addressed them, more than once.


I think that is what I’ve been saying you got a theory there is another theory.
But the Greek is clear here, and there are no significant variants to the verse, and I gave you a link to see the significant variants, so “theory” is not applicable here, that is just wishing thinking on the part of those whom choose to destruct and reconstruct the verse for their home-made systems that oppose what the verses really say.


Clifton, you seem much to bright to suggest the author had in mind an audience of the 21st Century. Who were the folks the author had in mind in Rev 1:9 when he wrote, “I John, who also am your brother in tribulation” I don’t think he had me in mind because I’ve never been in tribulation. So who did he have in mind? You seriously think he had Moses who was dead buried and in heaven in mind? When I said “We Christians of the past, present, and future are the “audience”, I mean those whom lived before us, those of us here now and we’ll be here in the future, and those whom shall be. If you understood the verb shifts, and studied the DSS Revelation (which I gave you a link to of my revision of it: Revelation Q), then you would know, outside of the 7 letters, it is for the history of all people, of which gets worst before the ultimate climax of the Second Advent Of Christ – as I said, people went through worst afterwards, and even mores so in the 20th Century, and ethnic groups in the world now are in tribulations and persecutions. The was one of the reasons I gave you the link for the Interlinear for Revelation 1:7 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Revelation&chapter=1&verse=7) so you could click on the Verb Parsing Code and see what the TENSE and MOOD is – call it spiritually or metaphorically, Christ is always coming, as that Greek verb shows.


Ok, so you want to give me an English translation say prior to 1950 or so that gave a different rendition? Again, I’m not talking about one of those one off translations where some individual developed the translation by himself. Again, I haven’t a clue as to what you mean by “2-Day delay”.
You have yet to show me a translation that makes the statement “without delay”. Would not make a difference if you did, because as I said, it refers to the process itself, "speediness of action" … "swiftness of motion” … a suddenness … etc., Qualitative indicators for the manner in which the action / process occurs – rapidity of execution after the beginning takes place, but if you have such an English version, or any other, then by all means, humor me :D


“Latter-rain” Harold Camping? A proto-martyr “faithful one” as Antipas, observed by many Christians across the world each April 11, though somewhat limited in our protestant (we do not pray to saints of the past), which we should see as an important precious part in our hearts (along with the others of course, but Antipas is an example we should follow note since he was the one named in Revelation 2:3), and you can only reply this way. :hmm: I guess that is the ghost of Alcazar speaking? Those links were extracted from the other thread you were reading that brought you here – what does Harold Camping have to do with anything regarding Antipas, other than referencing him like so many others have? I have read many pages contributed to Antipas (the spelling of his name does vary in various texts).


No I think the author had in mind the current persecution that the Church was experiencing at the hands of both 2nd Temple Judaism, (synagogue of Satan) and the Romans, both of which can be shown in the book of Acts. Sure, folks post this event had hope of relief, didn’t I tell you that the principles of Christianity can be applied throughout eternity? Nevertheless, that does not negate that the letter was written to real people in real harms way that were in dire circumstances. You seem to be forgetting this simple fact. And this has to do with Antipas, how? It does not make sense. Antipas was not appointed bishop until 83 A.D., so I do not know what you mean by a “2nd Temple Judaism”.

What is the “letter” you are talking about?

Also, in regards to the Book Of Acts, I only discuss portions of it with you in re of the Greek and any relation to the Greek in Revelation. That book is on hold for me right now (and other people as well) and I need further study the issues regarding it, and it is not included in the UPDV Bible (http://read.updated.org/bible/) (at least). It is a well-worn battle of critics in the protestant realms about it being in the Bibles (though the Liberals are opposing them that are “against it”), but in short, from what is being said, the Book we got now is not the original, but a “fudge” / “revision” and “readjustment”… blah blah blah” – true, it is a discussion for elsewhere, and not here, but I just note it here because the book has the same measure as the Book of Enoch right now for many people. If you would like to further study the issue, and limit search listings coming up, try (be sure include the quotes):

"Galatians Versus Acts"

which should be sufficient.

Also a search phrase "Acts Versus Galatians" might bring up a mere few listings, as opposed to the former search string.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 9th 2008, 02:46 PM
Ironically, you and the poster PaulT, are having the same debate. I am inclined to agree with PaulT on this matter. As the matter isn't so much one of language, but of understanding.

Hi Teke! :)

Me and PaulT are not discussing the “1000” years business, though I asked for his input on it, because that was the intent of my earlier posting: to hear from users whether they think it is literal or just a segment of time, and why;

There seems to be only 2 options available, and I am not an opponent of either one of them. However, as of recently, I have notice some notes out of the “Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament” for Isaiah – they are no longer alive to reply to my post, YHWH rest their souls, so at least I got their readings. They presented a case I have not heard or read before. They put it as Isaiah not being able to understand the element of time span (or something like that), but the time span was better understood by The Seer, John’s time. But again, I am not an opponent of either the two views.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 9th 2008, 02:55 PM
I don't understand your point, what words do you think the translators who rendered the passage with the concept of "without delay" are swapping around?

I know of no such translation that renders it as “without delay” (AS IF it where the adverb Ταχυ <5035> were in the verse instead of ταχει <5034>). It would have no logic or sense in the verse. But if you have such an English Version with that rendering, please feel free to humor me :D

If you would like the see the EIGHT main entries lexicon forms of the Greek stem “tαχ”, some short definitions, and how they were rendered in AV (KJV), you can start at:

http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5029

Near the top right of the window, you will see a double set of orange-colored angle brackets “<<” and another set, “>>”

Once you review the lexicon of one form, you can click in the “>>” and that will take you to next-in-line word/strong’s number; and continue to do that until you get to Strong’s #5036 (that is the last one).


I can supply the forms and grammatical note of each one as well. There are 9 of them.


Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 9th 2008, 03:10 PM
I noticed in your above response that you acknowledged, “So your comment “The point still applies, the definition of the word or range of meaning is only one aspect of the translation” is true – it depends upon the context, the grammar of the word, and what other words are associated.”

Assuming that all the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB and the ESV understood the rules of Koine grammar as well as you, your acknowledgement that “context” is a key component would seem to go to the argument below.
1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>). (ESV)The phrase “that must soon (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ>) take place” and the phrase “the time is near (<φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εγγυς</φοντ>)” are tightly bound by context. So it just won’t do to say that the lexical range of <φοντ χολορ="#φφ0012">εν ταχει</φοντ> permits a meaning that at some far off (from the time of writing of Revelation) time a complex of events will happen quickly, rather than that the complex of events will happen in the near future of the time of writing.

I haven’t seen you deal with the contradiction your claim causes in lieu of the above argument.
I have addressed all of this – if you “haven’t seen” this or that, then you need to revert back through the messages if you really want to see. From here on out, and I omitting quotes that I have already addressed – you keep repeating things I have already addressed. The fact is I told you I am looking at the Greek – you want something else other than what it says – you can depend on a selective choice of Bible Versions for that – even if it were not available in an English Version, well, with numerous amounts of other languages, I would venture to guess you could find something there. Nothing changes the fact that the Greek does not say what your adjustment says (where other Greek words would instead apply);

The Integral of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures (unaltered) does not support the Alcazar system – Pantelism – Hyper/Full-Preterism - NeoHymenaeanism, whatever one's term is in regard to those.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 9th 2008, 08:10 PM
I have no idea of what you are trying to say – this looks like a context change – perhaps you forgot? Gill just mentioned as follows in his expository (note that the word “sixteen” has been updated to “nineteen”):

to show unto his servant things which must shortly come to pass: the Arabic version adds, "in future ages"; things that were to be hereafter, the accomplishment of which was necessary, because of the certain and unalterable decree of God, the good of his people, and his own glory; and these were to come to pass quickly, in a very little time; not that they would all be fulfilled in a short space of time, for there are some things not fulfilled yet, though it is nineteen hundred years ago and more, since this revelation was made; and we are sure there are some things that will not be accomplished till a thousand years hence, and more, for the millennium is not yet begun; and after that is ended, there is to be a second resurrection, and a destruction of the Gog and Magog army; but the sense is, that these things should very quickly begin to be fulfilled, and from thenceforward go on fulfilling till all were accomplished. Now to show, to represent these things, in a clear manner, as the nature of them would admit of, to the servants of Christ, all true believers, read and hear and diligently observe them, and especially to the ministers of the Gospel, whose business is to search into them, and point them out to and particularly to his servant John, was this revelation made by Christ, who immediately answered this end: * END OF QUOTE *

Blessings.

It doesn't seem to hard to understand what I'm suggesting, take a look at what I hightlighted in the quote above.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 9th 2008, 08:29 PM
I have addressed all of this – if you “haven’t seen” this or that, then you need to revert back through the messages if you really want to see. From here on out, and I omitting quotes that I have already addressed – you keep repeating things I have already addressed. The fact is I told you I am looking at the Greek – you want something else other than what it says – you can depend on a selective choice of Bible Versions for that – even if it were not available in an English Version, well, with numerous amounts of other languages, I would venture to guess you could find something there. Nothing changes the fact that the Greek does not say what your adjustment says (where other Greek words would instead apply);

The Integral of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures (unaltered) does not support the Alcazar system – Pantelism – Hyper/Full-Preterism - NeoHymenaeanism, whatever one's term is in regard to those.

Blessings.

Why don't you provide me the post number or link to the post you think addressed this argument, because I have reviewed your replies and I don't see the argument addressed by you. As I told you, I don't care if Alcazar's system is supported or not, that has no bearing on the discussion. The reason I keep repeating stuff is that I don't think you adequately addressed the argument.

As far as I can tell you’ve only provided 2 arguments, both of which don’t seem plausible, the 1st argument was translators just left a word our or didn’t take into consideration a word, my response was to provide you several mainline translations that all rendered the passage in similar fashion. The only way your argument would work in this case is if they all conspired together, again not likely. Your 2nd argument is that the passage rendered to suggest as Gill puts it, “the sense is, that these things should very quickly begin to be fulfilled, and from thenceforward go on fulfilling till all were accomplished.”,(which btw is supported by 18 translations we reviewed) is not possible according to the rules of 1st Century common Greek grammar. If indeed this is fact why did Gill and all those other translators render the passage in conflict with the rules? You suggestion has been that they were reading the English version back into the Greek, yet I showed you the claim of the ESV that they reviewed each phrase of the Greek to make sure the translation was accurate. Again, your argument doesn’t seem plausible. The argument above you said you addressed is dealing with the immediate context of the passage, I haven’t seen you tackle that.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 9th 2008, 08:36 PM
I know of no such translation that renders it as “without delay” (AS IF it where the adverb Ταχυ <5035> were in the verse instead of ταχει <5034>). It would have no logic or sense in the verse. But if you have such an English Version with that rendering, please feel free to humor me

If you would like the see the EIGHT main entries lexicon forms of the Greek stem “tαχ”, some short definitions, and how they were rendered in AV (KJV), you can start at:

http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5029 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5029)

Near the top right of the window, you will see a double set of orange-colored angle brackets “<<” and another set, “>>”

Once you review the lexicon of one form, you can click in the “>>” and that will take you to next-in-line word/strong’s number; and continue to do that until you get to Strong’s #5036 (that is the last one).


I can supply the forms and grammatical note of each one as well. There are 9 of them.


Blessings.

Check out the Websters’s definition you provided, all the translations that render the passage with “soon”, “must shortly come to pass”, “must quickly come to pass” are all translations that render the passage, “εν ταχει” with the “concept” of “without delay”.

PaulT

Teke
Mar 9th 2008, 08:52 PM
Hi Teke! :)

Me and PaulT are not discussing the “1000” years business, though I asked for his input on it, because that was the intent of my earlier posting: to hear from users whether they think it is literal or just a segment of time, and why;

There seems to be only 2 options available, and I am not an opponent of either one of them. However, as of recently, I have notice some notes out of the “Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament” for Isaiah – they are no longer alive to reply to my post, YHWH rest their souls, so at least I got their readings. They presented a case I have not heard or read before. They put it as Isaiah not being able to understand the element of time span (or something like that), but the time span was better understood by The Seer, John’s time. But again, I am not an opponent of either the two views.

Blessings.

Hi Clifton. :)

I am aware that you are debating the use of a Greek preposition, Gr."en". It is also common knowledge that "en" governs only one case, the dative. It denotes being or remaining within, with the primary idea of rest and continuance. It is also used for the efficient cause as emanating from within, and hence has sometimes the force of by, denoting the instrument, with, passing on to union and fellowship.

Examples as to place and space, Matt. 10:16, Luke 5:16. Or sphere of action, Matt. 14:2, Rom. 1:5,8,6:4.

Your associating of time with a Greek preposition would be better supported by "meta", which governs two cases, the genitive and the accusative. With the accusative it definitely is always in connection with time.

I'm just a bystander watching the same circular argument over prepositions I've seen numerous times.

PaulT
Mar 9th 2008, 09:23 PM
Not theory – Koine Greek and Grammar, just like if someone learned English, they would learn the grammar and use the English Dictionaries. There is no other way to read the verse in Greek other than what it says. And yes, I understand why you suggesting my “view” is theory, that is what all people that depend on home-made doctrines like the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Alcazar system utters. So, I guess you suggest all the people of Greece walking around “speak in unknown tongues
(theories)” when they speak, and have spoken in their own “biased” language Blessings.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, like I’ve demonstrated there are several translations that back up my viewpoint and you’ve yet to give a solid answer addressing why all the translators of those translations seemingly went brain dead when it comes to their rendering of the passage. Why you keeping bringing up Alcazar I don’t understand. Perhaps you are gaining an understanding of how weak your response has been and therefore need to discredit my position by using the logical fallacy of cause and effect,
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html)




Again, I am looking at the Greek, so it is not an issue for me. Thus, since you have a different reading other than what the Greek actually says, as I have already express, it is up to you to contact them and / or study their notes, web sites, etc. just like it would be for any other ethnic group that did a Bible version in their language. When I spoke to translators, it was not about any of their verse renderings. To be best of my knowledge, the travesty is only for Latin and English readers.
Blessings.

Friend, the burden is upon you to prove that the translators who rendered the passage with the concept that these things would be fulfilled “without delay” is incorrect is upon you, not me. Clearly you have a different understanding of the rules of the 1st Century common Greek grammar than what those who translated the passage “the things that must soon take place”. I’m beginning to think you don’t understand all the issues at play with the passage, otherwise you could provide a better response than just indicating they are wrong.



As for the rest of your comments, I have already addressed them, more than once.
Blessings.

Sure you have. The translators were brain dead, left out a word and contradicted the 1st Century rules of common Greek grammar.



When I said “We Christians of the past, present, and future are the “audience”, I mean those whom lived before us, those of us here now and we’ll be here in the future, and those whom shall be. If you understood the verb shifts, and studied the DSS Revelation (which I gave you a link to of my revision of it: Revelation Q), then you would know, outside of the 7 letters, it is for the history of all people, of which gets worst before the ultimate climax of the Second Advent Of Christ – as I said, people went through worst afterwards, and even mores so in the 20th Century, and ethnic groups in the world now are in tribulations and persecutions. The was one of the reasons I gave you the link for the Interlinear for Revelation 1:7 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Revelation&chapter=1&verse=7) so you could click on the Verb Parsing Code and see what the TENSE and MOOD is – call it spiritually or metaphorically, Christ is always coming, as that Greek verb shows.
Blessings.

You can’t get around the fact the letter was written to specific people for a specific purpose just like Matt 24 was a warning for that generation. The people the author wrote to shared in a real tribulation together. I understand in a sense Christ always comes, but that does not negate the fact He spoke of a real judgment that occurred in spectacular detail in accordance with His instructions in the 1st Century.



You have yet to show me a translation that makes the statement “without delay”. Would not make a difference if you did, because as I said, it refers to the process itself, "speediness of action" … "swiftness of motion” … a suddenness … etc., Qualitative indicators for the manner in which the action / process occurs – rapidity of execution after the beginning takes place, but if you have such an English version, or any other, then by all means, humor me Blessings.

Are we not discussing whether or not the word “soon” should be in the text? Doesn’t soon provide the concept of “without delay” Not according to Gill and the translators, Gill says the passage, “but the sense is, that these things should very quickly begin to be fulfilled, and from thenceforward go on fulfilling till all were accomplished.” “Very quickly begin to be fulfilled” is fundamentally different than the sense you are claiming is the only possible sense the grammar allows, albeit in verse 3 were are told the “time is near”.



A proto-martyr “faithful one” as Antipas, observed by many Christians across the world each April 11, though somewhat limited in our protestant (we do not pray to saints of the past), which we should see as an important precious part in our hearts (along with the others of course, but Antipas is an example we should follow note since he was the one named in Revelation 2:3), and you can only reply this way. I guess that is the ghost of Alcazar speaking? Those links were extracted from the other thread you were reading that brought you here – what does Harold Camping have to do with anything regarding Antipas, other than referencing him like so many others have? I have read many pages contributed to Antipas (the spelling of his name does vary in various texts).
Blessings.

You lost me here,



A proto-martyr “faithful one” as Antipas, observed by many Christians across the
And this has to do with Antipas, how? It does not make sense. Antipas was not appointed bishop until 83 A.D., so I do not know what you mean by a “2nd Temple Judaism”.

What is the “letter” you are talking about?

Also, in regards to the Book Of Acts, I only discuss portions of it with you in re of the Greek and any relation to the Greek in Revelation. That book is on hold for me right now (and other people as well) and I need further study the issues regarding it, and it is not included in the UPDV Bible (http://read.updated.org/bible/) (at least). It is a well-worn battle of critics in the protestant realms about it being in the Bibles (though the Liberals are opposing them that are “against it”), but in short, from what is being said, the Book we got now is not the original, but a “fudge” / “revision” and “readjustment”… blah blah blah” – true, it is a discussion for elsewhere, and not here, but I just note it here because the book has the same measure as the Book of Enoch right now for many people. If you would like to further study the issue, and limit search listings coming up, try (be sure include the quotes):

"Galatians Versus Acts"

which should be sufficient.

Also a search phrase "Acts Versus Galatians" might bring up a mere few listings, as opposed to the former search string.

Blessings.

The letter is the book of Revelation, I don’t know that it does have anything to do with Anitpas, at least the one you spoke of. Methinks you have been too caught up in textual criticism.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 9th 2008, 09:30 PM
That would be impossible since the Bible Revelation was not totally compiled (of recent and long aged documents and sources) until beyond Vespasian’s time. The Seer "transfers himself in thought to the time of Vespasian, interpreting past events under the form of a prophecy, after the manner of apocalyptic writers" (Swete). Such a procedure belongs to Jewish apocalyptic but not to Christian, until we advance well into the 2nd century.

Sorry, but you’re “thinking” is governed by a system invented in the 16th Century, further innovated in the 19th Century, and even more so after 1970, to counter the “doomsday” prophets – and after all, the schools of hyper-futurism does the same things hyper-preterism does – reshapes and rewrites scriptures, disjoints snippets from their context via “selecting processing” (picking snippets of verses here and there, thereby forcing a change of context), to fix (aka “support”) their views – same thing as done with many religions and systems – it is nothing new under our sun.

Blessings.

Gee then why isn’t 70AD mentioned as a past event in any of the books of the NT? The book of Revelation couldn’t have been writing pre 70AD because the Bible wasn’t complied until after 70AD? That is a sound argument? Friend, you don't know what governs my thinking.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 9th 2008, 11:28 PM
Yeah, but in school you had a professor to clarify your understanding of the subject and to make sure your conclusions were well founded. Tell you what, if you are in need of a heart transplant are you going to seek out the services of a self-educated physician or one who went to medical school? The purpose of the professor is to validate the student is comprehending the material.

Yea, some words and the grammatical structure of them – and we were often told to refer to dictionaries, and the rest of the years refer to it. Your comment provides no excuse to alter the Greek’s language, no more, than if they come over here after learning English, would they have a right to change English words around. You need an earlier MS that says otherwise for that.


The meaning is self-evident in the term used to describe his training; “self-taught” is not training. His conclusions based on the material read were not validated by skilled academia. Given the fact that I have yet to see a lack of alignment with the original languages, and MHMNC does reference the resources, it would appear that he was “taught” by many. When it comes to learning one’s language, or other languages, we always have to depend on resources.


Well he certainly sounds like one, if you read his bio it indicates he subscribes to no creeds. He left orthodoxy and followed a cult eventually even leaving the cult. I’m not sure that he is a Nazarene; it seemed he was using a term that is the name of a Protestant denomination yet his use was to indicate he followed the teachings of the Nazarene, (Jesus Christ) and therefore is a Nazarene. The fact he doesn’t hold to the doctrine of the trinity would indicated he is not a member of the Nazarene Church. Not really, in those realms, no more than the protestant realms, of which I notice a shift in regards to that back in the last century (though I am not part of that shift). Sounds like you are talking about creeds of later dates, like the 4th or 5th Century, and there were different ones – what of the folks before these “creeds” came about? As I said, the key is holding to the scriptures – not creeds – of course, obviously, by following scriptures, one can claim to hold to things in creeds.


Great man {sic: John Gill}, who wasn’t self-educated, btw, I generally check with his views on stuff. Don’t agree with all of it, but most of the time I think he is spot on. Yea, I have enjoyed his works as well over the past few years. Great resources and references provided in his expositions.


“Mark makes no claim of inspiration or special revelation from God. He states that it is his belief that each individual Christian will stand before the judgment throne of Christ [2 Corinthians 5:10], and particularly teachers will be judged by their words. [Matthew 12:36, 37; James 3:1, 2] Each is responsible for their own choices in matters of doctrine and Christian worship. He believes that no church, sect, or religious organization has an exclusive on Biblical truth. He has never told a person to leave or join any particular group. He believes there have been "wheat" Christians [or, sheep] scattered all around the world throughout the Gospel Age. [Matthew 13 and 25] Not all Christian teachers have agreed during the past 2,000 years, nor does perfect harmony obtain now at the beginning of the 3rd Millennium. Despite this, Mark believes major Bible truths are self-evident in the Scriptures and that any honest person who reads the Bible without bias, or some sectarian filter, will come to understand those truths taught by Jesus Christ the Nazarene and his inspired disciples.”

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewsuccess.asp?AuthorID=73953

The statement, “Mark believes major Bible truths are self-evident in the Scriptures” is a sign of a cult. This is code that the creeds aren’t needed. Well, I just did a count for the number of Bibles in Online Bible ALONE, and the number is 69. This of course, includes the ones in Hebrew, Greek and Latin (I am not acquainted with Latin), so I would venture to say there are about 60 of them in English, and obviously, I do not know what they ALL say for each verse – some of them are NT Only. Also, I have other Bible Versions in e-Sword and The Sword Project which I do not have in Online Bible. Since I refer to the Hebrew and Greek, and the grammatical structure, it does not matter. I use them to convey in English what is in Hebrew and Greek in posts, etc. A number of poor renderings in a Bible version does not necessarily mean that it is ALL rendered poorly – I could guess that even NWT got at least one verse rendered proper… probably John 11:35 (one way or another).


I don't understand your question, "and the scripture support for “creeds” is what?" Are you questioning whether Scripture supports the concept of a statement of faith or if the statement of faith is supported by Scripture. It would depend on which “Creeds” you are referring to, and which parts of those creeds. We are to follow scripture. “Creed” is of Latin Origin.


Creeds were developed as the Church defended itself against heresy. A Creed is a statement of faith, what it is you believe Scripture says. Without the Creed or statement of faith you don’t know what the person believes the self-evident truths are according to his view. Unfortunately, there is division and diversities, and it can wind up as “heresy versus heresy”. I hold to the Holy Bible. It becomes a different world when looking at it in Hebrew and Greek, or even finding out the grammatical forms of the verbs, as I have shown you, you can do online with the URL I provided you. I’m sure there are others.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 9th 2008, 11:30 PM
Well your education on the subject is incomplete, another reason why one doesn’t seek the advice of a self-educated physician when surgery is required. D.A. Carson is a very well respected professor and scholar. Logical fallacy is a term used to describe an illogical position and has merit in any discussion.
Main Entry: fallacy
Function:noun
Inflected Form:plural -cies
Etymology:Latin fallacia, from fallac-, fallax deceitful, from fallere to deceive
Date:14th century

1 a obsolete : GUILE, TRICKERY b : deceptive appearance : DECEPTION
2 a : a false or mistaken idea *popular fallacies* b : erroneous character : ERRONEOUSNESS
3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
©2000 Merriam-Webster

It is staggering that someone not even acquainted with Hebrew or Greek can make such a statement – since you are not acquainted or fluent in these languages, how can you make a statement that one must have Carson’s book, otherwise they are being deceptive, etc.? What I say can be checked with reputable scholars, theologians, grammarians, and so on, that is well-versed in the Hebrew and Greek languages, so I find your accusations against me most amusing. But continue on as you wish. :P

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 9th 2008, 11:38 PM
Do me a favor; get me the opinion of a recognized NT Greek Scholar that endorses his stuff. From what I understand he admits his stuff isn’t for the serious student of Greek. The fundamental issue I have with his stuff is similar to the issue I have with your claim that you have yet to address, which is why did the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV all go brain dead when it came to their rendering of Rev 1:1. “recognized”??? :rofl:

It what appear a lot of your “understandings” are in error, and when people exert erroneous views concerning the Greek, they are always gonna have problems with Greek Professors and specialists. Well, as to learning Greek, no, you could not depend on Zodhiates for “learning” Greek – that would be too hard – it would be like somebody from another Country grabbing a hold of one of our larger dictionaries to learn English. They have to have a training book before hand. The works of Zodhiates are “companions”, but they do provide analytical and exegetical of quite a bit. As I said, I do have multiple resources, hardcopies, on the computer, and online access.

And it still boils down to one thing – you do not like what the Greek says. You will have to free yourself before you do, and from what I have seen thus far, you are not ready to do that.:rolleyes:


Right, I hadn’t ever even heard of the guy until I got wrapped up in study course on the book of Revelation at the local Church using the dispensationalist material put out by Kay Arthur. I don’t recall the specifics of the word, but it had to do with one of his word definitions and the definition went something like, “well we know the word means X because Y hasn’t happened.” I have never seen the guy quoted in any serious work or study. Most amusing – thanks for the jolt of jocundity! :D
I’ve been in the modem world for nearly 20 years, and have seen what is written about him in others, especially the bgreek groups – collecting it all together from what I have witnessed in the networks and the internet, he is the MOST recognized authority on Koine Greek – I have seen this more of him than BDAG, BAGD. Obviously, since these are folks that cater to English Speakers, then people depending on English versions, especially “reworked” for their view(s) will not like them, as well as others which I mentioned in a previous post.


I’m stunned that AMG is stunned that the phrase, “things which must shortly come to pass” can be viewed in any other way than indicating the things of the vision will begin in short order. And they would in return be stunned at your spin on “αποκαλυψις <602> {N-NSF} ιησου <2424> {N-GSM} χριστου <5547> {N-GSM} ην <3739> {R-ASF} εδωκεν <1325> (5656) {V-AAI-3S} αυτω <846> {P-DSM} ο <3588> {T-NSM} θεος <2316> {N-NSM} δειξαι <1166> (5658) {V-AAN} τοις <3588> {T-DPM} δουλοις <1401> {N-DPM} αυτου <846> {P-GSM} α <3739> {R-APN} δει <1163> (5719) {V-PAI-3S} γενεσθαι <1096> (5635) {V-2ADN} εν <1722> {PREP} ταχει <5034> {N-DSN} και <2532> {CONJ} εσημανεν <4591> (5656) {V-AAI-3S} αποστειλας <649> (5660) {V-AAP-NSM} δια <1223> {PREP} του <3588> {T-GSM} αγγελου <32> {N-GSM} αυτου <846> {P-GSM} τω <3588> {T-DSM} δουλω <1401> {N-DSM} αυτου <846> {P-GSM} ιωαννη <2491> {N-DSM}” as well.
You forget, like me, they are looking at the Koine Greek – not any English that did not render it properly (though I am sure they saw some of them), or anyone reading it wrongly, (whether influenced by others or not). They might throw something to you like:

ταχυτητα (η): gear; speed.
σινομα: soon
σύντομα: soon
σε λιγη ωρα: (clock/time wise) soon
κοντός, κοντοί, κοντή, κοντές, κοντό, κοντά: shortly
γρήγορα: quickly
χωρίs καθυστέρηση: without delay
αντωνυμία: pronto (actually, “pronto” is not a shorter word for “without delay” {χωρίs καθυστέρηση} now).


How one can attempt to construe, using the definitions you provided, the phrase means when the things begin they will occur in short order is seemingly implausible. Seemingly to you, by that is the way the Greek is. As I expressed before, both futurists and non-futurists recognize that is means “rapidity of motion”, etc. etc. as I have already posted.


Surely, if that is AMG’s claim then you can understand why he isn’t quoted in any serious works. You change the English Dictionary as well (as needed) – your definition of “serious” is actually the word “erroneous” in the rest of our dictionaries. And that “claim”, as you call it, is not limited to AMG, or those before them of the past.


Clearly if the translators were using AMG’s viewpoint they would have rendered the passage something to the effect of, “when things come, they will shortly come to pass”, problem is they didn’t they clearly leverage the 2a & b concepts. As I pointed out earlier, KJV and NKJV have provided a proper reading, and I supplied the definitions of “shortly” and that it is a word before the 12th Century. Most readers, especially in the older days, recognized the structure of “shortly come to pass” versus “come to pass shortly”. You just choose to transpose the phrases and words to fix up your mistaken “take” on it – of course, when a Bible erroneously renders “soon”, well, that helps you out, doesn’t it? Even so, it does not line up with the Greek, which AMG, I, and others are looking at.


The only reason one would be stunned at the clear and obvious meaning is that they held a bias or an A Priori that indicated the clear meaning was simply not possible, regardless the plainness of the phrase. What does Gill say on the phrase? Whatever your delusions have ya. As for Gill, it is a mixed or combined package - he expresses as “in the sense, the things were to start quickly” (or something like that). That is in a previous post and a link to it in another post. I understand Gill knew Hebrew, and he does reference other versions, but I do not know whether he knew Greek or not. I do not recall having seen any of his work reference any Greek words – it appears he focused on KJV and other ethnic and ancient versions;

Also, in Gill’s time, KJV was undergoing a polishing process – the releases contained errors – the best polish was by Dr. Blayney, the 1769 Revision which is used the most in America. There is an 1850 version, which I have on the computer. I think Noah Webster did a brilliant job on his 1833 revision of the KJV. I have no doubt things were to occur “soon”, if they were not already happening, but I do not have to rework and reword the Greek for that belief.

Even so, the Koine Greek is still intact. Do not trust me if you wish, but for those that hold The Bible Revelation as a thing of the past, like Bugs Bunny said at the end of the show, ‘THAT’S ALL FOLKS!’, they believe those things occurred (past tense) with a suddenness, speedily, etc.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 9th 2008, 11:40 PM
I understand, and you think your view of the common Greek grammar of Rev 1:1 is not a theory.

Not “understand”, but “assuredly know” from years of experience.


I didn’t say Eusebius dated the book of Revelation. Never said you did. I think Eusebius was just referencing things of a time period, as opposed to ‘dating’ any contents or its final completion. Since the book uses sources of different times in the 1st Century (and even before), it has confused more than just the laymen.

Later.

PaulT
Mar 9th 2008, 11:46 PM
Main Entry: fallacy
Function:noun
Inflected Form:plural -cies
Etymology:Latin fallacia, from fallac-, fallax deceitful, from fallere to deceive
Date:14th century

1 a obsolete : GUILE, TRICKERY b : deceptive appearance : DECEPTION
2 a : a false or mistaken idea *popular fallacies* b : erroneous character : ERRONEOUSNESS
3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
©2000 Merriam-Webster

It is staggering that someone not even acquainted with Hebrew or Greek can make such a statement – since you are not acquainted or fluent in these languages, how can you make a statement that one must have Carson’s book, otherwise they are being deceptive, etc.? What I say can be checked with reputable scholars, theologians, grammarians, and so on, that is well-versed in the Hebrew and Greek languages, so I find your accusations against me most amusing. But continue on as you wish.

Blessings.

Well the couple of folks that you have used so far wouldn't seem to fit in the category of "reputable scholars". Pointing out the illogical nature of your position is an “accusation”?

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 9th 2008, 11:48 PM
Not “understand”, but “assuredly know” from years of experience.
Later.

Sure, whatever, is still doesn't mean it isn't a theory.



Never said you did. I think Eusebius was just referencing things of a time period, as opposed to ‘dating’ any contents or its final completion. Since the book uses sources of different times in the 1st Century (and even before), it has confused more than just the laymen.Later.

What has this to do with the argument?

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 10th 2008, 12:38 AM
“recognized”???
It what appear a lot of your “understandings” are in error, and when people exert erroneous views concerning the Greek, they are always gonna have problems with Greek Professors and specialists. Well, as to learning Greek, no, you could not depend on Zodhiates for “learning” Greek – that would be too hard – it would be like somebody from another Country grabbing a hold of one of our larger dictionaries to learn English. They have to have a training book before hand. The works of Zodhiates are “companions”, but they do provide analytical and exegetical of quite a bit. As I said, I do have multiple resources, hardcopies, on the computer, and online access.
Blessings.

Why all the banter, does this mean you don’t have a recognized scholar who endorses Zodhiates opinion on the subject? You bet, I'm in error about a lot of stuff, problem for you here is that 18 recognized solid translations, one of your own sources, the immediate context and the writings of the ECF's all support my position. Perhaps you speciality isn't so special.



And it still boils down to one thing – you do not like what the Greek says. You will have to free yourself before you do, and from what I have seen thus far, you are not ready to do that. Blessings.

Friend, I don’t have any problem with what the Greek says, I just have a problem with your theory of what the Greek says. The fact you haven’t been able to offer a better argument than the translators went brain dead goes to show the weakness of your position.



Most amusing – thanks for the jolt of jocundity!
I’ve been in the modem world for nearly 20 years, and have seen what is written about him in others, especially the bgreek groups – collecting it all together from what I have witnessed in the networks and the internet, he is the MOST recognized authority on Koine Greek – I have seen this more of him than BDAG, BAGD. Obviously, since these are folks that cater to English Speakers, then people depending on English versions, especially “reworked” for their view(s) will not like them, as well as others which I mentioned in a previous post.
Blessings.

LOL, you actions speak louder than words, if he was so well recognized by the academic community you wouldn’t have had to waste over 112 words above in not answering my simple question, you could have provided quotes explaining that “he is the MOST recognized authority on Koine Greek”.




And they would in return be stunned at your spin on “αποκαλυψις <602> {N-NSF} ιησου <2424> {N-GSM} χριστου <5547> {N-GSM} ην <3739> {R-ASF} εδωκεν <1325> (5656) {V-AAI-3S} αυτω <846> {P-DSM} ο <3588> {T-NSM} θεος <2316> {N-NSM} δειξαι <1166> (5658) {V-AAN} τοις <3588> {T-DPM} δουλοις <1401> {N-DPM} αυτου <846> {P-GSM} α <3739> {R-APN} δει <1163> (5719) {V-PAI-3S} γενεσθαι <1096> (5635) {V-2ADN} εν <1722> {PREP} ταχει <5034> {N-DSN} και <2532> {CONJ} εσημανεν <4591> (5656) {V-AAI-3S} αποστειλας <649> (5660) {V-AAP-NSM} δια <1223> {PREP} του <3588> {T-GSM} αγγελου <32> {N-GSM} αυτου <846> {P-GSM} τω <3588> {T-DSM} δουλω <1401> {N-DSM} αυτου <846> {P-GSM} ιωαννη <2491> {N-DSM}” as well.
You forget, like me, they are looking at the Koine Greek – not any English that did not render it properly (though I am sure they saw some of them), or anyone reading it wrongly, (whether influenced by others or not). They might throw something to you like:

ταχυτητα (η): gear; speed.
σινομα: soon
σύντομα: soon
σε λιγη ωρα: (clock/time wise) soon
κοντός, κοντοί, κοντή, κοντές, κοντό, κοντά: shortly
γρήγορα: quickly
χωρίs καθυστέρηση: without delay
αντωνυμία: pronto (actually, “pronto” is not a shorter word for “without delay” {χωρίs καθυστέρηση} now).
Blessings.

Friend I haven’t spun anything. I’ve just simply pointed out the phrase in question is used to convey “without delay” and as I recall your response was something to the effect, “yes it can mean “without delay” but not in the manner you are using it” as if “without delay” can have a variety of manners.



Seemingly to you, by that is the way the Greek is. As I expressed before, both futurists and non-futurists recognize that is means “rapidity of motion”, etc. etc. as I have already posted.Blessings.

As you will recall we weren’t talking about the Greek dictionary at the time we were talking about the English dictionary and how the translators framed the English words that reflected the English translation of the Greek phrase.



You change the English Dictionary as well (as needed) – your definition of “serious” is actually the word “erroneous” in the rest of our dictionaries. And that “claim”, as you call it, is not limited to AMG, or those before them of the past.
Blessings.

I didn’t change anything, I just pointed out based on the definition you provided how utterly ludicrous AMG’s amazement would have been.



As I pointed out earlier, KJV and NKJV have provided a proper reading, and I supplied the definitions of “shortly” and that it is a word before the 12th Century. Most readers, especially in the older days, recognized the structure of “shortly come to pass” versus “come to pass shortly”. You just choose to transpose the phrases and words to fix up your mistaken “take” on it – of course, when a Bible erroneously renders “soon”, well, that helps you out, doesn’t it? Even so, it does not line up with the Greek, which AMG, I, and others are looking at.Blessings.

Well seeing as how the KJV was rendered well after the 12 Century one wonders why you think a reading of the word prior to the 12th Century would have any bearing on the discussion. Nevertheless, I can see I’m not the only one practicing “jocundity”, your observation, “Most readers, especially in the older days, recognized the structure of “shortly come to pass” versus “come to pass shortly”.”, is a real hoot. It appears you need to go rethink that argument.


Whatever your delusions have ya. As for Gill, it is a mixed or combined package - he expresses as “in the sense, the things were to start quickly” (or something like that). That is in a previous post and a link to it in another post. I understand Gill knew Hebrew, and he does reference other versions, but I do not know whether he knew Greek or not. I do not recall having seen any of his work reference any Greek words – it appears he focused on KJV and other ethnic and ancient versions;

Also, in Gill’s time, KJV was undergoing a polishing process – the releases contained errors – the best polish was by Dr. Blayney, the 1769 Revision which is used the most in America. There is an 1850 version, which I have on the computer. I think Noah Webster did a brilliant job on his 1833 revision of the KJV. I have no doubt things were to occur “soon”, if they were not already happening, but I do not have to rework and reword the Greek for that belief.
Blessings.
The “jocundity” persists, Gill’s exact remarks are, “but the sense is, that these things should very quickly begin to be fulfilled, and from thenceforward go on fulfilling till all were accomplished.” BTW, John, “Like most children of dissenters, John was sent to the grammar school in the town. His adeptness at learning soon set him apart from the other children. John continued his education with merit until he was eleven, mastering the Latin classics and learning Greek.” http://www.siteone.com/religion/baptist/baptistpage/Portraits/gill.htm (http://www.siteone.com/religion/baptist/baptistpage/Portraits/gill.htm) So it again appears you got one of your own sources who disagrees with you how the phrase ”εν ταχει” should be rendered.




Even so, the Koine Greek is still intact. Do not trust me if you wish, but for those that hold The Bible Revelation as a thing of the past, like Bugs Bunny said at the end of the show, ‘THAT’S ALL FOLKS!’, they believe those things occurred (past tense) with a suddenness, speedily, etc.
Blessings.

Sure, I understand Gill and all the other translators of those 18 translations we addressed went brain dead when they translated the phrase, ”εν ταχει” in Rev 1:1,
truly a sound argument.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 10th 2008, 02:59 PM
Right, and I have more than once explained that this refers to occurrences, processes, etc. e.g. when I clean my car next week, I will do in quickly / without delay. It is where (along with the Greek Kardias) tachycardia comes from - which does not mean that the heart will beat soon, but that it is beating rapidly. As for the bigger picture of Arndt & Gingrich, I do have the bigger picture of pages 814-815 (I’ve had it for a long time) – are you sure you want to continue with the snippets you use of Arndt & Gingrich??? Are you sure you want to go there?Blessings.


{sic: ........... see line above^ ^ ^ “a little square blue icon with an white right angle bracket in it”} * From which post are you pulling my quotes? Sure, I would love to understand the full section, because what you are suggesting doesn’t make any sense. You are acknowledging the phrase means “without delay” and is connected to occurrences so why you don’t think it can’t be used to describe when the things would commence their occurrence I haven’t a clue. Do you have the capability of scanning them and sending them out in PDF format?
On the issue of backtracking, it is the same way from the other forum board you came from (which uses the same software) – for example, if you are you using the same template for reading messages here (“vBulletin3”), then when you see “Originally Posted by PaulT”, it is followed by “a little square blue icon with an white right angle bracket in it” – click on that to see what the post says that is being quoted (this is usually the first “quote” at the top of the post in people's replies).

On the issue of BAG, I told you that I do not have the resource myself, so I pick it up from the internet just like I do for other references, and like others pick up referenced resources from me. And I have seen the same quotes of BAG to the pages you referenced always say the same thing, except yours. So I will eventually post an outline, but I am including Conley & Schoettle; G. H. Lang; Liddell, Scott; Spiros Zodhiates; Vine, Unger, White, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich; Blass-Debrunner-Funk, Mal Couch, and Kregel all together. I just have to do the language update of the Greek words;

In short, you had Baur and Arndt as given a term for ταχος 5034 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5034) (where the form used is ταχει in Revelation 1:1 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rev&chapter=1&verse=1), 22:6 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rev&chapter=22&verse=16)) which they actually give for ταχυ 5035 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5035) (Rev. 2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20). That is why, in advance, I provided people here a starting link to go through the 8 different main dictionary/lexicon entries yesterday.

I was not aware that anyone was gleaning something different from Revelation 1:1 other than what it actually says until early this decade. Out of dozens, if not hundreds of people, I think I have come across only about a half dozen that did that, thus, since the problem appears to be quite small, it was not on my list of “in progress” projects until last year or earlier this year;

True, as I said, when you learn Greek, the teachers, specialists, influent in Greek, the Greeks, etc. do present this Bible or that Bible render something poorly / incorrectly, and will usually show where another Bible rendered it in a good manner. As for ESV, well, my material is old and before the time of ESV. If you go out and buy a training book, you are most likely going to see issues about Bibles and their renderings of verses here and there.


You are acknowledging the phrase means “without delay” and is connected to occurrences so why you don’t think it can’t be used to describe when the things would commence their occurrence I haven’t a clue. I’ve explained it several times – it has to do "with swiftness of execution when the prophetic events begin to take place..."; I have reached the point that I am not interested in repeating these things as if I were on a revolving carousel. The Greek is the Greek, it does not make any difference if over 100 English versions, or a number of them in any other languages says differently: The Greek is still the Greek and not changed because of any other Bible Version in any other language.


Prayer is a good thing, thank you. Your welcome – we al do it for one another.



“in order to better accommodate our discussion about the Greek in Revelation, which of the following two English Versions do you feel conforms to the Greek Text for Hebrews 11:11 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Hebrews&chapter=11&verse=11)”?

By faith Abraham, even though he was past age— and Sarah herself was barren— was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise. (NIVUS)

By faith Sarah herself also received power for conception of seed, and she bore a child past the normal age, because she regarded Him faithful who had promised. (EMTV)



Thanks, I think I understand your point now but I’m not sure how this helps you. The fact the disparate translation shows up in the link you provided as the odd duck would seems to cut against your logic. There is a major difference between “By faith Abraham” and “By faith Sarah”. There is no such MS reading with the name Abraham in it for Hebrews 11:11. IOW, it is a bogus reading, and shows an example of such. The link I provided you was for the purpose of going to the bottom of the page and putting your mouse cursor over the name “Sara”, which would highlight the other blocks (like the Greek and the Strong’s Numbers). It has been written about in books "as a tragedy" (much like the “easter” word in KJV). The “By faith Abraham” is rejected because it does not conform to the Greek.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 10th 2008, 09:46 PM
On the issue of backtracking, it is the same way from the other forum board you came from (which uses the same software) – for example, if you are you using the same template for reading messages here (“vBulletin3”), then when you see “Originally Posted by PaulT”, it is followed by “a little square blue icon with an white right angle bracket in it” – click on that to see what the post says that is being quoted (this is usually the first “quote” at the top of the post in people's replies).Blessings.

Thanks for the tip, if for no other reason, this was worth the discussion.



On the issue of BAG, I told you that I do not have the resource myself, so I pick it up from the internet just like I do for other references, and like others pick up referenced resources from me. And I have seen the same quotes of BAG to the pages you referenced always say the same thing, except yours. So I will eventually post an outline, but I am including Conley & Schoettle; G. H. Lang; Liddell, Scott; Spiros Zodhiates; Vine, Unger, White, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich; Blass-Debrunner-Funk, Mal Couch, and Kregel all together. I just have to do the language update of the Greek words;

In short, you had Baur and Arndt as given a term for ταχος 5034 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5034) (where the form used is ταχει in Revelation 1:1 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rev&chapter=1&verse=1), 22:6 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rev&chapter=22&verse=16)) which they actually give for ταχυ 5035 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5035) (Rev. 2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20). That is why, in advance, I provided people here a starting link to go through the 8 different main dictionary/lexicon entries yesterday.

I was not aware that anyone was gleaning something different from Revelation 1:1 other than what it actually says until early this decade. Out of dozens, if not hundreds of people, I think I have come across only about a half dozen that did that, thus, since the problem appears to be quite small, it was not on my list of “in progress” projects until last year or earlier this year;

True, as I said, when you learn Greek, the teachers, specialists, influent in Greek, the Greeks, etc. do present this Bible or that Bible render something poorly / incorrectly, and will usually show where another Bible rendered it in a good manner. As for ESV, well, my material is old and before the time of ESV. If you go out and buy a training book, you are most likely going to see issues about Bibles and their renderings of verses here and there.

I’ve explained it several times – it has to do "with swiftness of execution when the prophetic events begin to take place..."; I have reached the point that I am not interested in repeating these things as if I were on a revolving carousel. The Greek is the Greek, it does not make any difference if over 100 English versions, or a number of them in any other languages says differently: The Greek is still the Greek and not changed because of any other Bible Version in any other language. Blessings.

I appreciate your patience, as a result of this conversation I secured a copy of “The Precise Parallel New Testament, Greek Text, KJV, Rehims Bible, Amplified Bible, NIV, NRSV, NAB, NASB” published by Oxford Press. Needless to say all six translations render the phrase “things which must quickly, shortly or soon take place, or come to pass.” Not one of them renders the passage as you do. Also, I did some additional research and found this web page for you. It seems how the preposition interacts with the nouns is a debatable topic, http://books.google.com/books?id=XlqoTVsk2wcC&pg=PA360&lpg=PA360&dq=koine+greek+grammar+rev+%221+1%22&source=web&ots=DwAeqb0A1F&sig=2t_mkv2GdpZnkDsQXxx-WpuSa-g&hl=en#PPA374,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=XlqoTVsk2wcC&pg=PA360&lpg=PA360&dq=koine+greek+grammar+rev+%221+1%22&source=web&ots=DwAeqb0A1F&sig=2t_mkv2GdpZnkDsQXxx-WpuSa-g&hl=en#PPA374,M1)
which, it would seem, would explain why there are translations that do not agree with your rendering. As I said, your theory regarding the subject of the adverbial phrase is a debatable point as evidenced by all the other translations which indicate the swiftness has to do “when” the prophecy will arrive and “not” how the prophecy will unfold.




There is a major difference between “By faith Abraham” and “By faith Sarah”. There is no such MS reading with the name Abraham in it for Hebrews 11:11. IOW, it is a bogus reading, and shows an example of such. The link I provided you was for the purpose of going to the bottom of the page and putting your mouse cursor over the name “Sara”, which would highlight the other blocks (like the Greek and the Strong’s Numbers). It has been written about in books "as a tragedy" (much like the “easter” word in KJV). The “By faith Abraham” is rejected because it does not conform to the Greek.Blessings.

Again, I don’t see the relationship with this argument and the comment above. It isn’t like there is only one translation that uses the term, “things which must quickly, shortly or soon take place, or come to pass.”

It appears you’ve about run out of steam and I can assure you I have as well. Thank you for your thoughts time and energy.


PaulT

Clifton
Mar 11th 2008, 03:36 PM
Them and everybody else, present at that time, and the further future. The 7 letters were addressed specifically to the Christians in seven regions. Let’s not forgot DSS Revelation, which most of which underlies the Bible Revelation – some Christians believe that the Bible Revelation was a plagiaristic rip-off of DSS Revelation, with some modification and adjustments, and then the insertions of the 7 letters were prepared.


It is your view, or theory if you will, that the passage is for everyone else, that isn’t what the author wrote, although undoubtedly it applied to other Christians living within the general area yet were not apart of those specific congregations. The principles of the book are for the future ages, but the impending relief the book promised was for those who shared in tribulation of the author. I’m not familiar with the “DSS Revelation” as far as I know the book was included in the 1st canon of Scripture used to dispute Marcion back in 144AD.

I doubt Marcion included Revelation in his “Canon”. If he did, it does not matter because he mutilated texts and rejected the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanak / OT), so we don’t consider him having a ‘Biblical Canon’ at all. What we consider the first canon is the Muration Canon.

In Revelation 4:1-2, The Seer goes into a different vision, which could have actually been written before the previous contents in the Bible Revelation:

(1) After these things I looked and saw, and behold, a door opened in heaven[32], and the first voice that I heard, like a trumpet speaking with me, was one saying, “Come up here, and I will show you the things which must happen after this.”

(2) Immediately I was in the Spirit[33]. Behold, there was a throne set in heaven, and one sitting on the throne (3) that looked like a jasper and a sardius[34] stone. There was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald to look at.

Jap Consecution Footnotes:

[32] 4:1 cp. Testament of Levi 5:1; See also 1 Enoch 14:15.

[33] 4:2 There is high probability that part of this chapter was written at an earlier date by The Seer and subsequently incorporated by him when he edited the complete work, since in chapter 1 he was ‘in the Spirit’.

[34] 4:2 jasper: i.e. a gem of varying colors; sardius: or, carnelian; i.e. a red gem.

-----

As for “DSS Revelation” (it is called by several names. DSS = Dead Sea Scrolls), I provided a link in post #44, on page 3 of this thread to you so you could access Revelation Q. Look for the “Revelation Q” link on that page, in the last half of the post . Again, the primary source for Revelation Q is given in the front and rear matters of the PDF file, as well as a link to get the ZIPped (compressed) WordPerfect Version Format (the format of the PDF and WordPerfect is columnized). In Revelation Q, I have provided parallels, close parallels, or questionable parallels to the Bible Revelation. It is a good "end-times" study and important where the Bible Revelation is concerned. Here’s a sample (parallels to the Bible Revelation and the like are in parenthesis) - I have removed the paragraph numbers in the file:

(1:7) Behold, the Angel of the Air[1] shall bring Him, and every eye shall see Him, and the brotherhood, all the vast brotherhood of the Earth, shall raise their voice as one and sing, because of Him. {sic: notice the difference here, “sing” versus “mourn”, which is one of the many nicer things about this text.}
Amen.
(1:8) "I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End; what is, what was, and what is to come."
(1:10) And the voice spoke, and I turned to see the voice that spoke to me,
(1:12) And being turned, I saw seven golden candles;
(1:13) And in the midst of their blazing light; I saw someone like a son of man, clothed in white, white as the snow[2].
(1:15)‡ And his voice filled the air with the sound of rushing water;
(1:16)‡ And in his hands were seven stars , [full of the flaming light of the heavens from whence they came.] And when he spoke, his face was streaming light, blazing and golden like a thousand suns.

….

(4:1) And then I looked, and behold, a door was opened in Heaven: And a voice which sounded from all sides, like a trumpet, spoke to me: "Come up here, And I will show you the things which must be hereafter."
(4:2)‡ And immediately I was there, in spirit, at the threshold of the open door. And I entered through the open door, into a sea of blazing light.
(4:3)¥ And in the midst of the blinding ocean of radiance was a throne: And on the throne sat one whose face was hidden. And there was a rainbow around about the throne, which looked like emerald.

Revelation Q footnotes:

[1] First Angel which later in the text opens “the first seal”.

[2] cf. Daniel 7:9

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

I am not always able to spend time at the computer. Sometimes I can have a lot of time at the computer, but there are times I am not available for posting, and this is not the only forum/group format I am in. So at times it may take me some time to catch up here and there. At times, I may have a lot of time to catch up and suddenly post a bunch of posts. Right now, I got to learn about my new printer – my previous one went bad, so I had no choice but to buy another printer – quite alright, I love peanut butter sandwiches anyway :P; So I will catch up when I can to the post this has replied to the first part of (Post #87) when I can, and subsequent posts.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 12th 2008, 12:52 PM
I doubt Marcion included Revelation in his “Canon”. If he did, it does not matter because he mutilated texts and rejected the Hebrew Scriptures
(Tanak / OT), so we don’t consider him having a ‘Biblical Canon’ at all. What we consider the first canon is the Muration Canon.
Blessings.

It is my understanding it was included in the Canon of Scripture developed by Orthodoxy in reply to Marcion, 144AD, that is where the Muratorian Canon came from and in which the book is mentioned.




In Revelation 4:1-2, The Seer goes into a different vision, which could have actually been written before the previous contents in the Bible Revelation:

(1) After these things I looked and saw, and behold, a door opened in heaven[32], and the first voice that I heard, like a trumpet speaking with me, was one saying, “Come up here, and I will show you the things which must happen after this.”

(2) Immediately I was in the Spirit[33]. Behold, there was a throne set in heaven, and one sitting on the throne (3) that looked like a jasper and a sardius[34] stone. There was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald to look at.

Jap Consecution Footnotes:

[32] 4:1 cp. Testament of Levi 5:1; See also 1 Enoch 14:15.

[33] 4:2 There is high probability that part of this chapter was written at an earlier date by The Seer and subsequently incorporated by him when he edited the complete work, since in chapter 1 he was ‘in the Spirit’.

[34] 4:2 jasper: i.e. a gem of varying colors; sardius: or, carnelian; i.e. a red gem.

Blessings.

“Jap Consecution Footnotes” ? I wonder what bias they bring to the discussion to suggest this was written separate and distinct from the balance of the Revelation?

“And after these things” Rev 4:1, presumably the things the Angel had told him about the 7 churches right? “I looked up, and behold, a door standing open in heaven.” Sounds like a vision to me. Sounds like he is still in the “spirit” to me, I mean I haven’t seen any doors in the sky lately.



As for “DSS Revelation” (it is called by several names. DSS = Dead Sea Scrolls), I provided a link in post #44, on page 3 of this thread to you so you could access Revelation Q. Look for the “Revelation Q” link on that page, in the last half of the post . Again, the primary source for Revelation Q is given in the front and rear matters of the PDF file, as well as a link to get the ZIPped (compressed) WordPerfect Version Format (the format of the PDF and WordPerfect is columnized). In Revelation Q, I have provided parallels, close parallels, or questionable parallels to the Bible Revelation. It is a good "end-times" study and important where the Bible Revelation is concerned. Here’s a sample (parallels to the Bible Revelation and the like are in parenthesis) - I have removed the paragraph numbers in the file:

(1:7) Behold, the Angel of the Air[1] shall bring Him, and every eye shall see Him, and the brotherhood, all the vast brotherhood of the Earth, shall raise their voice as one and sing, because of Him. {sic: notice the difference here, “sing” versus “mourn”, which is one of the many nicer things about this text.}
Amen.
(1:8) "I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End; what is, what was, and what is to come."
(1:10) And the voice spoke, and I turned to see the voice that spoke to me,
(1:12) And being turned, I saw seven golden candles;
(1:13) And in the midst of their blazing light; I saw someone like a son of man, clothed in white, white as the snow[2].
(1:15)‡ And his voice filled the air with the sound of rushing water;
(1:16)‡ And in his hands were seven stars , [full of the flaming light of the heavens from whence they came.] And when he spoke, his face was streaming light, blazing and golden like a thousand suns.

….

(4:1) And then I looked, and behold, a door was opened in Heaven: And a voice which sounded from all sides, like a trumpet, spoke to me: "Come up here, And I will show you the things which must be hereafter."
(4:2)‡ And immediately I was there, in spirit, at the threshold of the open door. And I entered through the open door, into a sea of blazing light.
(4:3)¥ And in the midst of the blinding ocean of radiance was a throne: And on the throne sat one whose face was hidden. And there was a rainbow around about the throne, which looked like emerald.

Revelation Q footnotes:

[1] First Angel which later in the text opens “the first seal”.

[2] cf. Daniel 7:9

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

I am not always able to spend time at the computer. Sometimes I can have a lot of time at the computer, but there are times I am not available for posting, and this is not the only forum/group format I am in. So at times it may take me some time to catch up here and there. At times, I may have a lot of time to catch up and suddenly post a bunch of posts. Right now, I got to learn about my new printer – my previous one went bad, so I had no choice but to buy another printer – quite alright, I love peanut butter sandwiches anyway ; So I will catch up when I can to the post this has replied to the first part of (Post #87) when I can, and subsequent posts.

Blessings.

Thanks but what is your basis for presupposing the Dead Sea Scrolls had any impact on John’s work, other than they both use a similar “style” of writing? Thanks for the link but who wrote the PDF? Here is a link to a book that discusses the “fragments” found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that are considered to be written in a similar “style” as the book of Revelation. I don’t see Revelation, “DDS” discussed.
http://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXnB4CRpUC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=Book+of+Revelation+in+the+Dead+Sea+Scrolls&source=web&ots=E3eR62Z-2z&sig=kDYDRHSiU5cMKge-yyIYyEt1uow&hl=en#PPA375,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXnB4CRpUC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=Book+of+Revelation+in+the+Dead+Sea+Scrolls&source=web&ots=E3eR62Z-2z&sig=kDYDRHSiU5cMKge-yyIYyEt1uow&hl=en#PPA375,M1),

Are you sure the PDF is legitimate? The book makes no mention of a Revelation DDS, although it addresses 4 or 5 books found in the immediate area. Have you considered the parallels in the different books could be attributed to the fact the different authors were both aware of OT prophets and leveraged that language, rather than the DDS is a source document for the book of Revelation?

I understand about the time issue, no problem.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 12th 2008, 03:25 PM
You say you want to understand what the verse says, and yet, (in the same posts), you want to defy the language, as well The Greek Language and Grammar Experts, in a manner that you want to change their language. No one has that authority.


I’m not defying the language or the grammar, I’m defying your theory of that grammar in application to what Rev 1:1 was intended to convey. I’ve got 18 or so solid translations that back up my point of view along with the immediate context of the verse in question. Well, it would appear that you are defying the language and grammar of both the Greek and English by making the verse look as if it saying something it is not and this is taking in account and accepting the adverbial use. If you got 18 “versions” that back up your “point of view” in question, that would not surprise me - I assume you are saying they are all using the term “soon” or “immediately”, so I checked about 60 English translations in Online Bible and I came up with about 13 (we’ll add NET that is in the e-Sword and The Sword Project Software), so that is about 1/5 of them, and since they are using the word “soon”, they are certainly not “solid” by any means when put to the Greek Text Test – plus, there is the issue I mentioned before – they are no variants for Revelation 1:1, so some of those 12 (and maybe even The NET Bible) might be versions updated from a previous version (of their own or from another version), thus, they will feel there is no reason to check the verse other than language update, because as far as they are concerned, the Greek is the same as years before in the previous version, thus, it was already weighed to the Greek and checked back in those days.
How does your “point of view” match up with the following, by using the stems? Which one, or ones of the following are the Greek matching your point of view?
ταχυτητα (η): speed; gear* (* = added to Modern Greek: relative speed)
σινομα: soon.
σύντομα: soon.
σε λιγη ωρα: (clock/time wise) soon.
κοντός, κοντοί, κοντή, κοντές, κοντό, κοντά: shortly.
γρήγορα: quickly.
χωρίs καθυστέρηση: without delay.
αντωνυμία: pronto (actually, “pronto” is a shorter word for “without delay”).
παραχρημα: immediately, forthwith, instantly.
ευθεως: anon, as soon as, forthwith, immediately, shortly, straightwayHuh? At time times I could almost think you were referring to τανυν or νυν. :hmm:

The fact is, that since some English Bibles renders some verses poorly, well, gathering them all up, anyone could get their “point of view” backed up. I checked The Greek Orthodox Church Greek New Testament, as well the more Modern Greek VAMAS New Testament for Revelation 1:1, and though some word changes are there, they concur with the Koine Greek that Bibles are translated from, along with the many English Versions which render it in a good way (grammatically speaking) and accurate to the meaning of the text;

Also, I might look into my 3 Volume English dictionary and see just want all the definitions of the word “soon” is – maybe it is legitimate in some sense, but it is a poor word to use, because the antonym word is “later”, which does not make sense, and thus does not work in regards to the text, say, like,
“quickly” verses “slowly”,
“shortly” verses “longly”,
“quickness” verses “slowness”,
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc…. does.


Well I suppose if Domitian predated Adam and Eve, then you might be onto something. Just because the author used Jewish symbolism doesn’t mean it was written during the time of Moses. What is your point? There are quotations, references, and allusions to the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, as well as to other secular sources, and the Pseudepigrapha. I gave you two links to see the sources and the parallels back in message #44 on Page 3. ;)


Well, I think the Irenaeus passage is debatable but we are talking about the vision that is commonly known as the book of Revelation are we not? Perhaps or Irenaeus had his facts wrong, the point is that the dating of the book was in question even back then. Which one of the visions in Revelation? Also, there was no question about the dating of the sources in the book and its compilation of Revelation back in the 2nd Century – I know what you are depending on and are taught, though you may not be aware of it – it is the usual “selective” processing that victimizes people, such as “selective quotations”, etc. disjointed from the contexts and other collections of MSS. Yep! There is now more than one MS of Irenaeus (about 3 more I believe) and other substantive resources now available to us, but people whom want the “backdate” the compilation of Revelation depend on “missing text” in ONE MS of Irenaeus. See what I really nice guy I am by informing you of this? :P - Most of the time I already know your replies before you post them ;)


Excerpt from Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary Introduction for Revelation: Its canonicity and inspiration (according to a scholium of ANDREAS OF CAPPADOCIA) are attested by PAPIAS, a hearer of John, and associate of POLYCARP. PAPIAS was bishop of Hierapolis, near Laodicea, one of the seven churches. WORDSWORTH conjectures that a feeling of shame, on account of the rebukes of Laodicea in Revelation, may have operated on the Council of Laodicea, so as to omit Revelation from its list of books to be read publicly(?). The Epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne to the churches of Asia and Phrygia (in EUSEBIUS, [Ecclesiastical History, 5.1-3]), in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius) (A.D. 177) quotes #Re 1:5 3:14 14:4 22:11, as Scripture. CYPRIAN (about A.D. 250) also, in Epistle 13, quotes #Re 2:5 as Scripture; and in Epistle 25 he quotes #Re 3:21, as of the same authority as the Gospel. (For other instances, see ALFORD’S Prolegomena, from whom mainly this summary of evidence has been derived).


What post did you lift my question from; I can’t track back and follow the logic of why this above statement has any relevance to the argument. Not an argument to me ;) The issue was that in the 2nd Century the Laodiceans did not accept the Bible Revelation, the conjecture of reasoning for that. I bolded the part you were seeking.


I’m not attempting to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. Is the quote referenced in the source I quoted? If it is then it explains why the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV all translated the passage the way they did. Ah, you mentioned lack of not seeing posts here and before. FTR, if you will trace back, you will see you cannot include KJV and NKJV, per the English Grammar rules – they rendered the passage to the Greek and the English and Grammar – There have been no changes in English Grammar in the past several centuries, if ever at all. ;)

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 12th 2008, 05:18 PM
Hello Teke :)


I am aware that you are debating the use of a Greek preposition, Gr."en".

Well, true, but more so ταχει and, at times, the other words from the stem ταχ.


It is also common knowledge that "en" governs only one case, the dative. Yea – but people learning Koine Greek might not know that until later. Example, my little training manual is the 1989 “Learn New Testament Greek” by John H. Dobson (over 50 lessons). “en” was one of the first 9 words to learn - all the words in John 1:1 – which is the starting point. It is not until a lesson up in the 30’s or 40’s does one find that "en" governs only the dative case. Dobson pretty puts off teaching the grammar parts too much at once, until later in the Greek lessons and just provides a little at a time. The book contains all the goodies – stems, verb parsing methods to employ, suffix meanings, and so on. There are only so many words a person needs to learn, that way, the other words not in Dobson’s work, can be easily understood, so it is really all one needs – the rest might be deemed as eccentricities, except for dictionaries – they seem to be an necessity, for English and any other language an English speaker learns.


It denotes being or remaining within, with the primary idea of rest and continuance. It is also used for the efficient cause as emanating from within, and hence has sometimes the force of by, denoting the instrument, with, passing on to union and fellowship.

Examples as to place and space, Matt. 10:16, Luke 5:16. Or sphere of action, Matt. 14:2, Rom. 1:5,8,6:4.

Your associating of time with a Greek preposition would be better supported by "meta", which governs two cases, the genitive and the accusative. With the accusative it definitely is always in connection with time. Thanks for the notes – Yea, I made me a chart of prepositions and what case(s) they govern. Since “time” is not an issue for me, other than “clocking” of “how the action is done”, I’m focused on ταχει. However, while the Greek Orthodox Church Greek New Testament also uses εν ταχει, I note that the 2 Modern Greek New Testaments, Vamas and Metaglottisis, used the word ταχεως (quickly, shortly <5030 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5030)>), which is an Adverb, so I accept the adverbial usage with its definitions and the English renderings using those which conform to the English and its grammar as we learned in school. An English translator has to have the grammar of English down pat as well, to give a literalness of a translation.


I'm just a bystander watching the same circular argument over prepositions I've seen numerous times. Yea, I too, am a bystander of some threads – the things we learned in the past come up either refreshing our memory or keeping it in our memories to access them right away, and learn new things as well. I go back to resources all the time, too. This road does not always seem to be “like a bicycle”, where you can go decades off of, then get back up on the bike and be able to ride with no problem :lol:

BTW, speaking of ταχεως and English Versions rendering εν ταχει in that manner, the adverbial usage, well, I got Harper’s English Grammar by John B. Opdycke, Ph. D. (1941, 1965 A.D.), and as well as one used in Elementary School for students (Macmillan English). I got those several years ago. I told a school teacher that I needed to refresh my memory on English Grammar and its rules, so she got me one and gave it to me. It was publish in 1979 with these elementary photos, but anyway, the very first words used are “quickly” and “slowly”, for “telling how the action is done”, then they go into the other adverbial words and their usages, “where the action is done” and “how often the action is done”, and so on, like the formation of Adverbs from Adjectives.

Years ago, I studied the English Dictionaries quite a bit too, and still refer to them!:D

Blessings.

Teke
Mar 12th 2008, 09:00 PM
Revelation is meant to encourage. So the use of the word "soon" is more acceptable than "suddenly", as "suddenly" wouldn't offer the encouragement that "soon" would. In the midst of persecution God's people don't have long to wait for relief to come.

A major thrust of Revelation is its emphasis upon the shortness of time before the fulfillment. The events predicted by Daniel and seen by Christ stood in readiness to be fulfilled, so John could speak of them as imminent.

Clifton
Mar 12th 2008, 09:20 PM
Revelation is meant to encourage. So the use of the word "soon" is more acceptable than "suddenly", as "suddenly" wouldn't offer the encouragement that "soon" would. In the midst of persecution God's people don't have long to wait for relief to come.

A major thrust of Revelation is its emphasis upon the shortness of time before the fulfillment. The events predicted by Daniel and seen by Christ stood in readiness to be fulfilled, so John could speak of them as imminent.

Yes, but that is already conveyed in Revelation 1:2 (Byzantine-Majority), 19 (ALL GNTs in use);

2 (EMTV)who testified to the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things as He saw, both the things that are and those that must happen after these.

19 (EMTV) Write therefore the things which you saw, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.

Given the fact that things get gloomy and tragic, who would be in a hurry for them?

What is in 1:1 shows the suddenness of things happening. As far as the “when” part, as we see in 1:2,19 of the Byzantine-Majority, there is no need to see 1:1 other than the impact and drive it expresses, etc. ;)

Blessings.

Teke
Mar 12th 2008, 10:21 PM
there is no need to see 1:1 other than the impact and drive it expresses, etc. ;)

Blessings.

Then we agree that "soon" is equivalent to "imminent".....to me that would be more in line with the use of the preposition there.

Clifton
Mar 12th 2008, 11:15 PM
Yea – but people learning Koine Greek might not know that until later. Example, my little training manual is the 1989 “Learn New Testament Greek” by John H. Dobson (over 50 lessons). “en” was one of the first 9 words to learn - all the words in John 1:1 – which is the starting point. It is not until a lesson up in the 30’s or 40’s does one find that "en" governs only the dative case. Dobson pretty puts off teaching the grammar parts too much at once, until later in the Greek lessons and just provides a little at a time.

I stand corrected – actually the grammar starts at lesson 3, but while it lists the four cases of LOGOS <3056 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3056)>, it only “identifies” the SUBJECT and OBJECT forms as such. So, it gently throws the grammatical stuff to the student – the last few lessons are resourceful for “referencing.” The book has begun to come apart – notably at this one section I keep referencing, “Nouns and their endings (suffixes)” – I’m gonna have to copy it into my computer, like so much else I have done over the years.

The “en” and the issue of the dative case comes up in Lesson 31.3, “I am being baptized with water”, etc. but the same thing, in English, could be said without the “en”. One thing I can imagine about this book – “Bathtub Baptisms” adherents probably scoff at Dobson.

As for Greek in Revelation, well good thing it is at the end of the Bible, because that is the last one anyone would want to read the Greek of it. Verb Tenses “within” the so-called visions (though ορασει <3706 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3706)> itself does not show up until 4:3) seems moot.


Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 12th 2008, 11:33 PM
Then we agree that "soon" is equivalent to "imminent".....to me that would be more in line with the use of the preposition there.

Not in the English sense precisely and confined, because, the adjective imminent is:
: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over>
–imminently adverb

“What is ready to take place” can be thousands of years. Of course, "imminent" could relate to "soon" – it depends on the circumstances, but the word “soon” does not even appear in my online Thesaurus for “imminent”. But quite alright, generally all friends do not always agree ;)

As you may know, the “en” is dropped in Modern Greek and “taxei” was replaced with “taxeos” in Revelation 1:1.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 13th 2008, 03:34 PM
Thanks for the link. In the manner you see this, does not concur with the Greeks and their grammar, nor the others familiar with it and the grammarians as well. I will note again, that a lot of English Bible Versions that come out today use previous English Bible Versions as a ‘starting point’, then refer to a Greek New Testament for variants, and adjust the text of the older used Bible accordingly. If there are no variants for a given verse, they will leave the verse untouched, unless the Bible Version they are using is so old it may require an update for a word or two. In the case of ESV, the English Bible they used as a starting point was the 1971 RSV, so “word updates” for verses with no variant readings were not likely to be touched: I do not have the 1971 Edition of RSV, but have the 1947 one, so I cannot compare them.
http://www.esv.org/translation/manuscripts
Blessings


So IOW, according to you they just jumbled the stuff up to fit their preconceived paradigm? Didn’t want to touch the argument I see. According to the claim in the forward of the ESV I have they based the translation on the “1993 edition of the Greek New Testament, (4th corrected ed.) published by the United Bible Societies (UBS) and Novum Testamentmentum Graece (27th ed) edited by Nestle and Aland. Thanks for the link, but I think your conclusion they based the translation on an English Bible is a bit of a reach, http://www.esv.org/translation/preface (http://www.esv.org/translation/preface)
"To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text."

Now, you misrepresent what I said. See my quote above where emphasized. And we will look at more of what they said, because apparently you did not go to the link that I provided you [?].

On the web link you provided under the subheading TEXTUAL BASIS:


Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition. In this regard the footnotes that accompany the ESV text are an integral part of the ESV translation, informing the reader of textual variations and difficulties and showing how these have been resolved by the ESV translation team. In addition to this, the footnotes indicate significant alternative readings and occasionally provide an explanation for technical terms or for a difficult reading in the text. Throughout, the translation team has benefited greatly from the massive textual resources that have become readily available recently, from new insights into biblical laws and culture, and from current advances in Hebrew and Greek lexicography and grammatical understanding.

Now, from the link I provided, which starts out with the text you mentioned, so I will start afterwards:


The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy (http://www.esv.org/translation/kjv), and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work.

Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, our goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries.

They have expressed just what I told you. You make it appear as if they translated directly from the Greek. If that is so, what is the need for the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work?
There a no textual variants for Revelation 1:1, so what would be the need to check that, when by using the RSV, by their view, it has already been “checked” and “weighed” in the past? So there very own web site confirmed what I said. Same goes for other Bibles that use a previous version. It just speeds the process up, which is a good thing.
ESV says, “the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition.” That would not be an issue for Revelation 1:1, since it has no textual variants (at least I have never been aware of any), but let me note, I hope you understand where those “non-preference” texts are, since when discussing with other people verses and / or passages, you may be at odds with other users and their Bibles when they do not have ESV. I hope those variants are given in your hardcopy. Since ESV has decided to use texts not preferred by UBS/NA, than what you see and understand in it, may not line up with others using other Bibles, and may even contradict theirs. ESV is not the only ones to do this. This is a problem with so many Bibles using a CT-Based text form like UBS/NA, is that they can “choose” readings. Sometimes these Bibles contradict themselves! Haven’t you already shown where ESV that Revelation 1:1 contradicts 1:19, at least from your “point of view” of 1:1?Thus, I am well comfortable and stand by what I said, and the very website of ESV supports what I conveyed (same for HNV/WEB, UPDV, etc.); Again, if there are no variants for the verse, and the English is not too old, then there is no reason for them to “check and compare”, with the exception, if the English is too old, they may want to do a language update of a word or more – ESV does state “Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts”, so one has to wonder what is so “archaic” about a 1971 translation.

It takes more than just knowledge of words of another language – there is the grammar of that language and for the Biblical Hebrew/Greek, the related history, Hebrew idioms, as well as the knowledge of one’s own native language and grammar when it comes to translating another language(s).

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 14th 2008, 08:47 AM
Well, it would appear that you are defying the language and grammar of both the Greek and English by making the verse look as if it saying something it is not and this is taking in account and accepting the adverbial use. If you got 18 “versions” that back up your “point of view” in question, that would not surprise me - I assume you are saying they are all using the term “soon” or “immediately”, so I checked about 60 English translations in Online Bible and I came up with about 13
(we’ll add NET that is in the e-Sword and The Sword Project Software), so that is about 1/5 of them, and since they are using the word “soon”, they are certainly not “solid” by any means when put to the Greek Text Test – plus, there is the issue I mentioned before – they are no variants for Revelation 1:1, so some of those 12 (and maybe even The NET Bible) might be versions updated from a previous version (of their own or from another version), thus, they will feel there is no reason to check the verse other than language update, because as far as they are concerned, the Greek is the same as years before in the previous version, thus, it was already weighed to the Greek and checked back in those days.
How does your “point of view” match up with the following, by using the stems? Which one, or ones of the following are the Greek matching your point of view?
1. ταχυτητα (η): speed; gear* (* = added to Modern Greek: relative speed)
2. σινομα: soon.
3. σύντομα: soon.
4. σε λιγη ωρα: (clock/time wise) soon.
5. κοντός, κοντοί, κοντή, κοντές, κοντό, κοντά: shortly.
6. γρήγορα: quickly.
7. χωρίs καθυστέρηση: without delay.
8. αντωνυμία: pronto (actually, “pronto” is a shorter word for “without delay”).
9. παραχρημα: immediately, forthwith, instantly.
10. ευθεως: anon, as soon as, forthwith, immediately, shortly, straightway
Huh? At time times I could almost think you were referring to τανυν or νυν.

The fact is, that since some English Bibles renders some verses poorly, well, gathering them all up, anyone could get their “point of view” backed up. I checked The Greek Orthodox Church Greek New Testament, as well the more Modern Greek VAMAS New Testament for Revelation 1:1, and though some word changes are there, they concur with the Koine Greek that Bibles are translated from, along with the many English Versions which render it in a good way (grammatically speaking) and accurate to the meaning of the text;

Also, I might look into my 3 Volume English dictionary and see just want all the definitions of the word “soon” is – maybe it is legitimate in some sense, but it is a poor word to use, because the antonym word is “later”, which does not make sense, and thus does not work in regards to the text, say, like,
“quickly” verses “slowly”,
“shortly” verses “longly”,
“quickness” verses “slowness”,
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc…. does.
Blessings.

Friend, the only thing I’m defying is your rendition of the passage which is supported by many more than 1 translation. The translations that you claim are in error use the term “soon” or facsimiles thereof. If you limit the term to “soon” you are setting up a red herring, because another word or combination of words can convey the same meaning as the term soon. Again, as we’ve demonstrated what you think to be solid grammar isn’t necessarily so, based on an assumption, reasonable assumption that the translators of these 18+ versions didn’t go brain-dead when translating the passage. Your assumption that they just signed off on a translation without checking it against the Greek was invalidated in the case of the ESV. It would seem to me the burden that the translators were uniformly sloppy is upon you to prove. Speculation would not seem prudent.


There are quotations, references, and allusions to the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, as well as to other secular sources, and the Pseudepigrapha. I gave you two links to see the sources and the parallels back in message #44 on Page 3. Blessings.
Thanks, but this doesn’t substantiate the accuracy of the claim. Again, just because the author uses similar language doesn’t mean the document was written during the same period the similar language was sourced from.


Which one of the visions in Revelation? Also, there was no question about the dating of the sources in the book and its compilation of Revelation back in the 2nd Century – I know what you are depending on and are taught, though you may not be aware of it – it is the usual “selective” processing that victimizes people, such as “selective quotations”, etc. disjointed from the contexts and other collections of MSS. Yep! There is now more than one MS of Irenaeus
(about 3 more I believe) and other substantive resources now available to us, but people whom want the “backdate” the compilation of Revelation depend on “missing text” in ONE MS of Irenaeus. See what I really nice guy I am by informing you of this? - Most of the time I already know your replies before you post them Blessings.
Well the whole book was a vision wasn’t it? There is plenty of question regarding the date of the book. What is your evidence that the book was complied in the 2nd Century? How is it your position is the fact, yet mine is based on “selective” reasoning. A nice guy would validate his claim. It doesn’t bode well when you make a claim without evidence as in the case above or like when you provide a PDF that can’t be traced and independent sources don’t confirm the PDF’s claim as in the case of DSS Revelation. Clairvoyant?

Not an argument to me The issue was that in the 2nd Century the Laodiceans did not accept the Bible Revelation, the conjecture of reasoning for that. I bolded the part you were seeking.Blessings.
The problem is you haven’t provided anything beyond the conjecture, what is the basis that the Laodiceans rejected it?



Ah, you mentioned lack of not seeing posts here and before. FTR, if you will trace back, you will see you cannot include KJV and NKJV, per the English Grammar rules – they rendered the passage to the Greek and the English and Grammar – There have been no changes in English Grammar in the past several centuries, if ever at all.

Blessings.

Sorry Friend, I can include them because I answered your silly conclusion, if you will trace back through these posts to my original response when your brought up AMG’s surprise you will discovery the folly of your assumption.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 14th 2008, 09:00 AM
Now, you misrepresent what I said. See my quote above where emphasized. And we will look at more of what they said, because apparently you did not go to the link that I provided you [?].

On the web link you provided under the subheading TEXTUAL BASIS:



Now, from the link I provided, which starts out with the text you mentioned, so I will start afterwards:

1. They have expressed just what I told you. You make it appear as if they translated directly from the Greek. If that is so, what is the need for the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work?
2. There a no textual variants for Revelation 1:1, so what would be the need to check that, when by using the RSV, by their view, it has already been “checked” and “weighed” in the past? So there very own web site confirmed what I said. Same goes for other Bibles that use a previous version. It just speeds the process up, which is a good thing.
3. ESV says, “the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition.” That would not be an issue for Revelation 1:1, since it has no textual variants (at least I have never been aware of any), but let me note, I hope you understand where those “non-preference” texts are, since when discussing with other people verses and / or passages, you may be at odds with other users and their Bibles when they do not have ESV. I hope those variants are given in your hardcopy. Since ESV has decided to use texts not preferred by UBS/NA, than what you see and understand in it, may not line up with others using other Bibles, and may even contradict theirs. ESV is not the only ones to do this. This is a problem with so many Bibles using a CT-Based text form like UBS/NA, is that they can “choose” readings. Sometimes these Bibles contradict themselves! Haven’t you already shown where ESV that Revelation 1:1 contradicts 1:19, at least from your “point of view” of 1:1?
Thus, I am well comfortable and stand by what I said, and the very website of ESV supports what I conveyed (same for HNV/WEB, UPDV, etc.); Again, if there are no variants for the verse, and the English is not too old, then there is no reason for them to “check and compare”, with the exception, if the English is too old, they may want to do a language update of a word or more – ESV does state “Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts”, so one has to wonder what is so “archaic” about a 1971 translation.

It takes more than just knowledge of words of another language – there is the grammar of that language and for the Biblical Hebrew/Greek, the related history, Hebrew idioms, as well as the knowledge of one’s own native language and grammar when it comes to translating another language(s).

Blessings.

I’m sure you are comfortable and I’m sure I didn’t misrepresent you, you just didn’t include the simple fact that that they said,
"The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century.
To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text. The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work. Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, our goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries."
http://www.esv.org/translation/preface
You are again assuming something that they flat out contradict, they state unequivocally, “To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text.” They didn’t qualify it stating they only checked those passages that contained archaic English words. Methinks you are reading something into the translators words not intended.

Clifton
Mar 14th 2008, 01:14 PM
No you haven’t, when I pointed out the conflict your claim had with all those translations one of you 1st questions was if I had adopted Alcazar’s system, well if my argument lead you to believe I had adopted a certain system why wouldn’t those who translated the passage that conveys what it is you think is indicative of that system likewise have adopted that system?
Yes I had covered that ground, and there is no conflict here – what you glean is a conflict and is out of alignment with the Greek and the other passages.


That you for your explaination but I don’t subscribe nor do I consider myself, a ““Pantelists”, “Hyper-Preterists”, “Full Preterists”, or 2 or more of the above?” Frankly I find it odd that you would even suggest such a thing.
Well, you seem to have adopted some of it – at least for Revelation 1:1 – it is at their doors that lay the “rewritten word”, in the same manner. What amazes me is that folks that get wrapped up in aberrant things, they throw the very accusations at users that they need to be throwing into the mirror as they stand in front of – this is more notable in USENET groups.

Though I will have to admit, like various movements and religions, some systems, such as hyper-preterists and hyper-futurists has a thing or two more right than the other. But, at times, neither one of them have it right.


This is really funny, it appears that by just pointing out your argument isn’t logically founded indicates to you I am unorthodox. That is a fantasy on your part, because it is not an argument to me because I hold to the Greek, keep the scriptures balanced as much as possible, and keep grammatically correct, just like I would if I learned German, Spanish, French, or whatever (someone unlearned in language and outside of it is not going to change the language on a whim or belief). And as to English, well, as has been shown, your opposition (and your referrals to Bibles Version that signify, what, “soon”, as in “early”?), and the English grammar, well, when it comes to straying away from the Greek and English and the grammar of those languages, that is what is not logical, despite slang, jargon, illiteracy, street talk. Etc.


No, just like any other translation that provides a poor rendering, disputed / interpolated / conflated passages, you are just taking “advantage” of those, in a manner that they do not intend.


]How so?[/color]
See your own posts for examples.


You now know how the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV all intended the folks who read their translations to understand the passages they read?
I refreshed my memory on adverbial use, and have accepted it – so drop KJV and NJV off the list – they are in accordance with the English grammar as learned in school and as the English grammar books provide, e.g. "quickly" and "slowly": “They tell how the action is done.” You are not trying to also change the English and its grammar too, are you? Well, folks with aberrant gleanings generally do that as well.


You somehow think they didn’t think the reader would understand the text for its face value content? Seems to me, rather than Greek grammar your argument really rests on your preconceived view of what the passage must then mean.
No “preconceived” view here – just adherence to the languages and their grammar just like any other language.

The many Bibles that give a good reading (and there are more of them that do than don’t), would expect you to have maintain a knowledge of the English Language and the grammar as learned in school – especially for translators and those of us that learn other languages that have to refresh ourselves on what we learned in school.

Blessings.

Teke
Mar 14th 2008, 03:05 PM
http://forums.mystery-axiom.com/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif

I believe your both close enough in understanding the meaning. Whether that leads one to other theological conclusions is another matter Clifton. From what I've read of your posts, your influenced by a preoccupation with the DSS and likely had some debates over eschatological issues being associated with this adverbs meaning. Quite understandable, but I don't see PaulT relating to this line of thinking. Perhaps another thread on the employment of adverbs toward theological views would clarify your views about the subject. It seems to me that this is where the difference of opinion is stemming from.

BTW, the Septuagint with the NT is out now in English (Conciliar Press). I've been waiting for over 3 yrs now, but the Orthodox have finally finished it and I've ordered mine. If it follows the NT study bible with Psalms they first put out, it is likely written in the NKJV.

Clifton
Mar 15th 2008, 12:47 AM
A view that the Rev 1:1 indicates the prophecy would be fulfilled soon does not necessarily mean the 2nd Advent occurred in the 1st Century. As Gill tells you the stuff began back then.
I explained this before – this time I will get a little bit more analytical to show why your ‘gleaning’ of Revelation 1:1 is erroneous and not in alignment with the Greek, and out of sync with elsewhere.

For the time being, let’s drop Revelation 1:2 from this which was presented before in the previous post(s), since its reading is different in the Byzantine-Majority Greek New Testament than the TR (Textus Receptus) Editions and the CT (Critical Text) Editions, and just use 1:19 – note that words in italics (e.g. “things”) are words supplied by the translator and are not part of the original language – emphasis mine, but first, a memory refresher:

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves what things are necessary to occur with quickness. And He made it known, having sent through His angel to His slave John,” (Revelation 1:1 ALT)

“Therefore, write what things you saw, and what things are, and what things are about to be coming after these things.” (Revelation 1:19 ALT)

saw = the verb is in the Second Aorist Tense, and in the Indicative Mood – IOW, it is history. That vision, as we might term it, ended there, of which was addressed in 1:2 to do. But that is not the primary thrust of the drive here – it is these other 2 places:
are = the verb is in the Present Tense and in the Indicative Mood, thus, is a continuous / repetitive action(s). What this means, is that “what things are” is already happening and has been happening;

about to be coming = same as above (“are”), but, is modified and enhanced with the Greek Preposition “META” (after; afterwards), thus refers to what is and comes after.
Perhaps an example is in order: take a person that goes to school:

They could say “I go (PRESENT TENSE, ACTIVE VOICE, and INDICATIVE MOOD) to school.”

The person has been going to school, is still going to school, and continues to go the school, until that process has occurred and school is completed.

Thus, the “what things” (remember that the word “things” is a supplied word) had already been in process, were in process, and continue to be in process. In the adverbial sense, Revelation 1:1 tells “how these processes (or “action(s)”) are done: quickly. This is appropriate but I see Bibles using literals like “with quickness / speed /etc.” as better and more understanding to the end-user. They (“what things”) occur, and have occurred, and will occur, e.g. with “suddenness.” – since there is a shortness meaning in this, so “shortly” is a valid word too, but in order to conform to the Greek, as an Adverb, it will be between the noun and verb. Out of over 60 English Translations, I only found one that did otherwise, (“come to pass shortly”), which was the Wuest Translation, which is inconsistent with its own rendering of 1:19.

Also, let's remember that the Majority of MSS give the same or similar reading in 1:2 as 1:19, so folks were not likely to separate them from 1:1, and we have this in the Hodges/Farstad Majority Text Greek New Testament and the Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine-Majority Greek New Testament.

As I said, in order for Revelation 1:1 to be changed to your “view”, you have to destruct the Greek text and construct a new one, but I will further note, when that is done, it affects other passages, which in turn, also have to be destructed with a new construction. Here, we see that the idea of “soon, early, immediately, etc.” would not make sense since the same chapter already shows that these things were “already in progress” (INDICATIVE MOOD) and were to continue on until an end. IOW, to change Revelation 1:1 for your view, that kind of makes 1:19 look like “Therefore, write what things you saw, which are about to be come” (using Future Indicatives);

Plus, it probably affects other verbs in the book as well and their verbs, since Greek Verbs are much conjugated, and would require different words, just like your idea of Revelation 1:1 does - or did? Perhaps you have departed from that now? It can not be more simple, and I cannot make it more simpler than this [yet?]. It is a lot easier than trying to change language words and their grammar. ;)

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 15th 2008, 02:54 AM
http://forums.mystery-axiom.com/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif

I believe your both close enough in understanding the meaning. Whether that leads one to other theological conclusions is another matter Clifton. From what I've read of your posts, your influenced by a preoccupation with the DSS and likely had some debates over eschatological issues being associated with this adverbs meaning. Quite understandable, but I don't see PaulT relating to this line of thinking. Perhaps another thread on the employment of adverbs toward theological views would clarify your views about the subject. It seems to me that this is where the difference of opinion is stemming from.

I do have DSS Isaiah, and access to excerpts of other DSS texts, but I would not say I am preoccupied with them – I am just referring to what appears to be an older copy of Revelation, and call it DSS Revelation (I’m not the only one calling it this). As I make note of in Revelation Q, I note on page 3:

* START OF QUOTES *
NOTE: Generally, “The Essene Book of Revelations”, or DSS Revelation (It is called
by various names - see Titles in Appendix) as seen on web sites contains missing
phrases and passages.

In the “Titles” in the Appendix, page 16 is the following:

Titles

Revelation Q
It has been referred to as "The Real Aramaic Revelation", "Essene Book of
Golden Pages”, “DSS Revelation”, “The Essenes Book Of Revelations”, etc.
Here , for this project, I use ”Q” for Qumran as well as for Quelle (from
the German, "source").
But this is not to be confuse with the Q Manuscript/Document/Gospel/-
Sayings referred to as the source for Matthew and Luke (which it is
considered that the other source for Luke is Mark).
For more info, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

Other Web Postings of DSS / Essene Revelation:

http://www.global.org/Pub/DSS_Revelation.asp

http://www.exodus2006.com/revelation.htm

[EDIT (Clifton):
:note: This is not an endorsement of any of the other contexts on these websites.]

MSN Group SoulsEssence <- Link for this not permitted here due to rules, I think.

Κλιφτον Ρη Ηοδζης [EDIT (Clifton): <- For clarity, this is my Name in Greek, as is identified in the PDF file, and as has been used as a signature in the past here]

[EDIT (Clifton): Removed email address place holder here in this place of the quote per Board Rules and better privacy. Dummy address link was created here by software and was not intentional.]
* END OF QUOTES *

I will update that too, eventually, to include names like “the original Revelation”, “the older Revelation” as well, and publish it to the domain. Actually, I think I have already begun to do that in the WordPerfect File.

To the best of my knowledge, this has never been a text on its own in any MSS, but a portion within other MSS. It can be found in the Gospel Of Peace (I think), and excerpts in other MS, like the DSS Book Of Hymns.

[EDIT (Clifton): changed "provided" to "providing"]
Besides providing parallel (or allusions) markers in Revelation Q, I imported text from other DSS readings that bear the same text – so it differs with Szekley’s Translation, and that which has been circulating on the Internet, as noted in the above mentioned links - I also was able to realign the numerical values of Angels - if you look at that on the Internet like from the above links, you will see a leap from the second angel to the fourth angel; Apparently, at least one MS was messed up in regards to this;

Example:

One of the passages I posted to PaulT, I forgot to mention that the text within square brackets were imported from elsewhere….(I’ll emphasize the text), here’s an excerpt of the post:

‡ = differs from JAP (John’s APocalypse);

(1:16)‡ And in his hands were seven stars , [full of the flaming light of the heavens from whence they came.] And when he spoke, his face was streaming light, blazing and golden like a thousand suns.

If you check the above links, you will not see the text within brackets on those readings. This quote reminds me – I dropped off that quote and went several passages later, over to the next column to a parallel to the Bible Revelation 4:1, but since we are here, let me do 2 more passages after the above one, in re of my previous post to the user:

(1:17) And he said, "Fear not, I am
the first and the last; I am the
beginning and the end.
(1:19) Write the things that you have
seen, and the things that are, and
the things that will come after; [are,
See also Revelations 1:2 of the
Byzantine Version.]
(1:20) The mystery of the seven
stars which fill my hands, and the
seven golden candles, blazing with
eternal light. The seven stars are
the Angels of the Heavenly Father,
and the seven candles are the…

In re of parallels, it goes up to the Bible Revelation 2:7, then the next parallel is 4:1 – obviously, the “letters” to the congregations are not there in this Revelation Version since they did not come about until the 1st Century A.D.


BTW, the Septuagint with the NT is out now in English (Conciliar Press). I've been waiting for over 3 yrs now, but the Orthodox have finally finished it and I've ordered mine. If it follows the NT study bible with Psalms they first put out, it is likely written in the NKJV. That is nice to hear – I have had an English Version of the Septuagint for at least a few years now. I have the Septuagint Greek with morphological and Strong’s codes as well;

Isaiah 25:8 {1} Death has prevailed and swallowed men up; but again the Lord God has taken away every tear from every face. He has taken away the reproach of his people from all the earth: for the mouth off the Lord has spoken it. {1) 1 Co 15:54} (LXXE)

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 16th 2008, 12:47 PM
You have heard of the Amillennial and Postmillennial positions correct?

I am familiar with various Postmillennial positions (the preface to Revelation in the Geneva Bible of the “past” millennial is fascinating). The Amillennial was later birthed in the school of Alexandria was further innovated by Augustine, which pretty much is the one that popularized it. I do not remember where Postmillennial was birthed at, or by whom.

Excerpt from “History of the Christian Church”, by Philip Schaff, 101. The Apocalypse. 1910, Charles Scribner’s Sons.
…Another important division of historical interpreters is into Post-Millennarians and Pre-Millennarians, according as the millennium predicted in #Re 20 is regarded as part {sic: past?} or future. Augustin {sic: Schaff’s spelling for “Augustine”} committed the radical error of dating the millennium from the time of the Apocalypse or the beginning of the Christian era (although The Seer mentioned it near the end of his book), and his view had great influence; hence the wide expectation of the end of the world at the close of the first millennium of the Christian church. Other post-millennarian interpreters date the millennium from the triumph of Christianity over paganism in Rome at the accession of Constantine the Great (311); still others (as Hengstenberg) from the conversion of the Germanic nations or the age of Charlemagne. All these calculations are refuted by events. The millennium of the Apocalypse must he {sic: be?} in the future, and is still an article of hope…
* END OF QUOTE *


Nevertheless, up until Hippolytus and Ireneaus, all the ECF’s believed the return of Christ was imminent, IOW they were expecting His return at any moment. However, even Hippy saw Rev 20:3 as a then existing reality. The 6000 year idea is a straw-man. Barnabas was talking about the Jewish view of the holy day.

I have the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. But you can access them at:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

The “straw-man” term is also a term saved for those that adhere to aberrant teachings that do not align up with the underlying languages of the scriptures. :(

The return of Christ, or that is to say, the beginning of final stage of the Second Advent, is still imminent, and it does not mean “soon” either.;)

The 6000 year belief was common (I quoted Irenaeus’ take on that to you, didn’t I?), and still has ground in today’s society, especially since the year in Israel right now is 5768, which as I understand it, dates to the first day of creation. If the 6000 year belief is true and the Hebrew Calendar is based correctly, then you are looking at about another 232 years before the beginning of final stage of the Second Advent of Christ at the rate.

The next section of this reply is a little bit lengthier, so I am separating it into another post.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 17th 2008, 12:29 AM
Well since the Tanak is a part of the Bible Revelation I would suspect that it uses many of the phrases of the Tanak, like all of them. What are you talking about? Who is Charles; you are telling me the author who told his audience that if they paid attention they would understand who the number of the beast represented needed an additional book to really “understand” it? Doesn’t sound like a very sound argument? Hey if you pay attention you will understand, oops I forgot to tell you, you need to reference this other book that I didn’t write.

Charles has certainly been a home name for serious Teachers and Students studying the Bible Revelation for nearly 9 decades now.

For info on R.H.Charles, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._H._Charles

and

http://www.qub.ac.uk/rascal/Biogs/CharlesR.html

He was a great linguist too. As you can see from the above links, he was the one that brought us “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament”, 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913, as well as the other works so many of us bring up here and there - The Apocalypse of Baruch, The Book Of Enoch (1 Enoch), Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, etc;

He was the author of “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John”, 2 vols., Edinburgh: Clark, 1920, though with other contributors. This work took 25 years, and he already had a good knowledge of the Bible Revelation for about 8 years prior to those 25 years, and the two volumes are over a 1000 pages. For about 50 years this was the standard for teachers of the Apocalypse for their students and readers. Even after 1970, this work is still quoted quite often. You can see this by doing a Google Search:

“R.H.Charles”

But in regards to the above mentioned work, and trimming down the search results, you can enter into the search text box:

"R.H.Charles" Revelation

At this rate, the following web page may appear at the top, or near it:

http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/contents.htm

Those web pages are ONLY the Preface pages in Volume 1.
:note: This is not an endorsement of anything else that may be on that web site.

Even the preterists quote from Charles’ work, though at times, as they usually do with other things like Early Christian Writing to current Christian Writings, do so in an ‘out of context’ manner.

If you have access to works like Robertson’s Word Pictures and you see the name “Charles” mentioned (57 times in notes for Revelation), it is he who is being referred to; Example:

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=017&verse=005

But for teacher and students involved (if not embroiled) in serious studies in John’s Apocalypse, his work is still one of the usual recommended works. Of course, one needs to also consider new discoveries since Charles’ time.

I have this 2 volume work in PDF files, and it is accessible via the Internet. My “Jap Consecution” Project uses Charles’ work in getting the proper sequencing of the Chapters and verse numbers (thus, “Consecution”. Jap=John’s Apocalypse), use some footnotes, summaries, headings, and etc., along with primarily using the public domain WEB Bible for the English Renderings, but also some of Charles’ English Translation as well (he also provided a Greek translation as well, which appears to me as close to the Tischendorf Greek New Testament), and he provided a Critical Apparatus of the sources and resources he used in them decades;

As for “Jap Consecution”, like I did for Revelation Q, I will provide that in WordPerfect Format as well, so users can use it for their own studies, edited it in any way they want to and make it their own – be it the summaries, footnotes, endnotes. I recognize there are different systems and ideas based on Revelation, so this is why I am doing that;

I have posted a “simplistic” nearly-updated and modified version of Charles’ English Translation on my domain – but note, there are no footnotes, endnotes, side notes, summaries, headings, or explanations (e.g. “where is 14:15-17?”) – just the “virgin of the English Translation” sequenced without interpolations and marginal glosses, and the format is not very “pretty” [yet], but is quite rough looking – but it is still readable:

Adobe Acrobat Reader format:
http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/jap/rhcet.pdf

Compressed ZIP format of WordPerfect Document:
http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/jap/rhcet.zip

The “Jap Consecution” project has been in the works since 2005 (it is generally just a compilation of other works). DSS Revelation caused a setback for me, and besides, it is only of one of many projects and things I do anyway, so I have no idea when a public pre-release will be available. Charles’ set the text of the Bible Revelation in a good readable and more understandable order, like he did for The Book of Enoch as well. The Updated Publishers, of the UPDV Bible, has set the book of Matthew in order (matching up better with the other Gospels, too), but the Chapter and Verse numbers have changed, but they do provide “Referencing” PDF files (http://www.updated.org/matthew.shtml) on their website (and in the appendixes of the hard prints) to show where the old chapter and verse numbering has gone to.

Blessings.

sabertooth
Mar 18th 2008, 05:55 AM
Wow! This looks well thought out. Clifton, This looks pretty good!

Sabertooth

Clifton
Mar 19th 2008, 01:39 PM
...

Do not worry about not being able to read Greek or Hebrew – the chart on the second page, (VII) has the verse numbers in English – Example:

1:18 *GREEK WORDS HERE* | Dan 4:31 (q ) 12:7, 1 Enoch 5:1

We see here in this example, that Revelation 1:18 is drawn from Daniel 4:31 (limited to one {group of} MS) and 1 Enoch 5:1.

Here’s the links again:

VI. Greek and Hebrew Sources, and their Dates, (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-%20VI.htm)

VII. Books of the O.T., of the Pseudepigrapha, and of the N.T. used by our author. (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-VII.htm)

Different MS – Different Readings, Different Versions (i.e. Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopian, etc.)

Thanks, but based on the premise you suggested Charles used, it doesn’t sound like he had a very well reasoned argument, I think I’ll pass.
Of course, in your case, that makes sense. :P So I will post sources used here in this thread, since, despite some Hebrew sources used, it is relative to the Greek in Revelation and is in spirit of the OP of this thread and intent. But since you are not the only reader here, others may have been interested in the sources thereby using the links. But note that posting those sources will cause some slag in catching up with replies to your posts.


I fear you are making another leap, As Gill points out the things began back then and will be concluded in future ages, for if the things weren’t to begin the time wasn’t very near them, eh?
Well fear not, there is no leap here on my part – and as I pointed out which the context of chapter 1 of the Bible Revelation shows, those things were already in progress. As for the Arabic Version having “in future ages” there, I call that a “conflation” on an editor’s part, to show things will continue as they have been.


Yes, you made the above assertion, but I haven’t a clue as to what you are basing your assessment upon. The ECF’s prior to Hippy and Irenaeus were expecting Christ to return immediately. J. Barton Payne in his book, “The Imminent Appearing of Christ” states, “…the ante-Nicene fathers believed that the persecutions they were enduring at the hands of Imperial Rome could be those of the final tribulation, and that therefore the Lord’s appearing to rule could be imminent” p 17.
That “assertion” as you call it is in the ECWs, and as I have already mentioned, I have the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. I have not seen anything that matches up with your formulation. However, there can be no doubt that people hoped for the beginning final stage of Christ’s Second Advent, but gathering the gospels into their contexts, the idea of the Advent happening so soon after the resurrection would leave very little to reap. As Revelation 1:7 shows (the actual and real reading), Christ is always present. The Greek words attached to Strong’s 2064 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=2064) are somewhat tricky for the English – generally, the words “come” and “go” are used, and the forms of those, but they have a deeper meaning than just “come” and “go”.


Perhaps or perhaps not, it is hard to tell because you didn’t provide more than the above comment and I don’t know which post the comment was used in, so I don’t know the contextual setting the comment was made in.
Judea and Galilee are not one in the same. My point is that some Bible versions have blunders in them, even to the point of contradicting themselves – by the “Critical Text” explanation of it, “the harder reading”.


Your bias is showing through, the context I’m using “without delay” in makes perfect sense to me, is supported by the translations I’ve pointed out, is consistent with the immediate context of the passages as well with the expectations of the ECF’s.
It does not even make sense for aberrancies (as usual), but what makes sense is in the unaltered verse and context. And again, I gave you a link to easily navigate through the Strong Numbers 5029-5036, and again, your terminology “without delay” is saved for Tachu – the word you were making it appear “as if” BAG was using it for Tachos/Tachei.


Perhaps if you weren’t forcing your bias on the passage then maybe the exception to your common Greek grammar theory would pop out at you. Again, if the passage doesn’t mean the stuff would “soon” begin, why did Gill write, “
not that they would all be fulfilled in a short space of time, for there are some things not fulfilled yet,… but the sense is, that these things should very quickly begin to be fulfilled, and from thenceforward go on fulfilling till all were accomplished.”?http://www.biblestudytools.net/Comme...t=002&prev=020 (http://www.biblestudytools.net/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=re&chapter=001&verse=001&next=002&prev=020)
Don’t understand this – Sounds Chinese to me. Want to put that back into context? Don’t forget, I use the marketed English Dictionaries, not any redefined construction of the words, and not redefined construction of the Greek words either. If you would cease plucking snippets, you would understand the texts better; when and if ever you want to. ;)


Yah think he had bought into Alcazar's system? Alcazar was relatively new in the time of Gill. From what I have seen so far of Gill in the past few years, he was more on “a” balanced side of eschatology. Of course, there has been a great deal of newer evidence that has come to light since the 1700’s, Gill’s Time, including the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) and other MSS. And of course, there is the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 19th 2008, 03:47 PM
Charles has certainly been a home name for serious Teachers and Students studying the Bible Revelation for nearly 9 decades now.

For info on R.H.Charles, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._H._Charles

and

http://www.qub.ac.uk/rascal/Biogs/CharlesR.html

He was a great linguist too. As you can see from the above links, he was the one that brought us “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament”, 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913, as well as the other works so many of us bring up here and there - The Apocalypse of Baruch, The Book Of Enoch (1 Enoch), Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, etc;

He was the author of “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John”, 2 vols., Edinburgh: Clark, 1920, though with other contributors. This work took 25 years, and he already had a good knowledge of the Bible Revelation for about 8 years prior to those 25 years, and the two volumes are over a 1000 pages. For about 50 years this was the standard for teachers of the Apocalypse for their students and readers. Even after 1970, this work is still quoted quite often. You can see this by doing a Google Search:

“R.H.Charles”

But in regards to the above mentioned work, and trimming down the search results, you can enter into the search text box:

"R.H.Charles" Revelation

At this rate, the following web page may appear at the top, or near it:

http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/contents.htm

Those web pages are ONLY the Preface pages in Volume 1.
:note: This is not an endorsement of anything else that may be on that web site.

Even the preterists quote from Charles’ work, though at times, as they usually do with other things like Early Christian Writing to current Christian Writings, do so in an ‘out of context’ manner.

If you have access to works like Robertson’s Word Pictures and you see the name “Charles” mentioned (57 times in notes for Revelation), it is he who is being referred to; Example:

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=017&verse=005

But for teacher and students involved (if not embroiled) in serious studies in John’s Apocalypse, his work is still one of the usual recommended works. Of course, one needs to also consider new discoveries since Charles’ time.

I have this 2 volume work in PDF files, and it is accessible via the Internet. My “Jap Consecution” Project uses Charles’ work in getting the proper sequencing of the Chapters and verse numbers (thus, “Consecution”. Jap=John’s Apocalypse), use some footnotes, summaries, headings, and etc., along with primarily using the public domain WEB Bible for the English Renderings, but also some of Charles’ English Translation as well (he also provided a Greek translation as well, which appears to me as close to the Tischendorf Greek New Testament), and he provided a Critical Apparatus of the sources and resources he used in them decades;

As for “Jap Consecution”, like I did for Revelation Q, I will provide that in WordPerfect Format as well, so users can use it for their own studies, edited it in any way they want to and make it their own – be it the summaries, footnotes, endnotes. I recognize there are different systems and ideas based on Revelation, so this is why I am doing that;

I have posted a “simplistic” nearly-updated and modified version of Charles’ English Translation on my domain – but note, there are no footnotes, endnotes, side notes, summaries, headings, or explanations (e.g. “where is 14:15-17?”) – just the “virgin of the English Translation” sequenced without interpolations and marginal glosses, and the format is not very “pretty” [yet], but is quite rough looking – but it is still readable:

Adobe Acrobat Reader format:
http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/jap/rhcet.pdf

Compressed ZIP format of WordPerfect Document:
http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/jap/rhcet.zip

The “Jap Consecution” project has been in the works since 2005 (it is generally just a compilation of other works). DSS Revelation caused a setback for me, and besides, it is only of one of many projects and things I do anyway, so I have no idea when a public pre-release will be available. Charles’ set the text of the Bible Revelation in a good readable and more understandable order, like he did for The Book of Enoch as well. The Updated Publishers, of the UPDV Bible, has set the book of Matthew in order (matching up better with the other Gospels, too), but the Chapter and Verse numbers have changed, but they do provide “Referencing” PDF files (http://www.updated.org/matthew.shtml) on their website (and in the appendixes of the hard prints) to show where the old chapter and verse numbering has gone to.

Blessings.

Thanks, just to be sure, is it his premise that Revelation, as it now appears in the NT was a compliation of texts and not a recording of a series of visions the author was given by God?

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 19th 2008, 03:56 PM
Don’t understand this – Sounds Chinese to me. Want to put that back into context? Don’t forget, I use the marketed English Dictionaries, not any redefined construction of the words, and not redefined construction of the Greek words either. If you would cease plucking snippets, you would understand the texts better; when and if ever you want to.
Blessings.

Hey, I can understand why you don’t understand his commentary, but it isn’t as though Gill was cryptic, methinks the issue is you don’t want to deal with the fact he contradicts what it is you suggest is the only rendering of the text. Context isn’t the issue, clearly Gill states the stuff of the visions would begin immediately culminating in the distant future. I’m not plucking “snippets” just pointing out what the man wrote and how it is inconsistent with what you claim is the only rendering of the text.

It seems based on reading some of the input of others, I have proven my point.


PaulT

Clifton
Mar 19th 2008, 04:39 PM
…you are telling me the author who told his audience that if they paid attention they would understand who the number of the beast represented needed an additional book to really “understand” it?...

Which one of the numerous authors over the several centuries and audiences? Irenaeus talk to those whom spoke to The Seer face to face, and they didn’t “understand” - but we could make a fair guess they did a lot of “counting”, as has been occurring since the 2nd Century. Irenaeus wrote out several sentences attempting to define it, as did others. We “know,” “believe” or “think” “who” the text was “based on” for an “ongoing and continuous representation of progression of an evil persona.”


It doesn't seem to hard to understand what I'm suggesting, take a look at what I hightlighted in the quote above.

I’m using the English Dictionaries and Grammatical Structures of those, and saving the offbeat language for the streets. Gill said “the sense is…”, therefore, does not imply that “it is”. Doesn’t matter now anyway, because there have been many MSS and discoveries that have been found and unveiled to us since Gill’s days. Reading Gill’s Expository on Revelation 1:19, he did not make the connection of that verse with 1:1. Since the same expression ending in 1:19 is in the majority of MSS in Revelation 1:2, Gill may have had better made the connection if it were available to him. He also shifted the adverb to the end in his note for Revelation 1:1. Nonetheless, the works of Gill in their “entirety” are quite resourceful and a treasure, IMO.

BTW, thanks for letting me catch up – I’m trying to post only one or two replies a day or two, and this is not the only thread I post on / reply on. On studying the manual of my new printer, I have to say, in this case, it is good thing I’m a poor old man and could only barely afford a 50 dollar printer instead of a 200 dollar one – I would hate to think what a manual would be like for one of those – and I am still not finished reading the one I got!

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 19th 2008, 09:59 PM
Which one of the numerous authors over the several centuries and audiences? Irenaeus talk to those whom spoke to The Seer face to face, and they didn’t “understand” - but we could make a fair guess they did a lot of “counting”, as has been occurring since the 2nd Century. Irenaeus wrote out several sentences attempting to define it, as did others. We “know,” “believe” or “think” “who” the text was “based on” for an “ongoing and continuous representation of progression of an evil persona.”

Blessings.

Surely you jest, the original author and his original audience. Perhaps the issue stems from the disparity in our viewpoints. My belief is that book, (Revelation as it appears in the NT) was written to a specific audience by a specific author with a unique message, you seem to think the book is merely a compilation of earlier writings that were pieced together providing any believer general guiding principles. Depending on ones viewpoint, the conclusions derived from the book will be fundamentally different.



I’m using the English Dictionaries and Grammatical Structures of those, and saving the offbeat language for the streets. Gill said “the sense is…”, therefore, does not imply that “it is”. Doesn’t matter now anyway, because there have been many MSS and discoveries that have been found and unveiled to us since Gill’s days. Reading Gill’s Expository on Revelation 1:19, he did not make the connection of that verse with 1:1. Since the same expression ending in 1:19 is in the majority of MSS in Revelation 1:2, Gill may have had better made the connection if it were available to him. He also shifted the adverb to the end in his note for Revelation 1:1. Nonetheless, the works of Gill in their “entirety” are quite resourceful and a treasure, IMO.Blessings.

Again, you jest, “the sense” not only implies but directly states what “it is” regarding the subject being addressed. I don’t understand your point regarding 1:19, he claims from, “hence” which would be now, the things would begin to be fulfilled, which again is in keeping with his view of Rev 1:1



BTW, thanks for letting me catch up – I’m trying to post only one or two replies a day or two, and this is not the only thread I post on / reply on. On studying the manual of my new printer, I have to say, in this case, it is good thing I’m a poor old man and could only barely afford a 50 dollar printer instead of a 200 dollar one – I would hate to think what a manual would be like for one of those – and I am still not finished reading the one I got!
Blessings.

No problem, I’ve been getting swamped with work and don’t really have the time to devote to your responses.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 20th 2008, 12:45 AM
Wow! This looks well thought out. Clifton, This looks pretty good!

Sabertooth
Well, the real credit goes to RHC (Robert Henry Charles) and contributors for setting the text straight – The last 3 chapters were the harder construction, but now, they look more sensible and so good. It is the last 3 chapters of Revelation in the New Testaments that are so messed up. In regards to this, Charles’ summary is as reads:

“CHAPTERS 20-22

The traditional order of the text in these three chapters is intolerably disordered and hopelessly unintelligible. The present editor (RHC) has restored, so far as he can, the order of the text as it left the hand of The Seer. See RHC Vol. II, 144-154.”

I may post the summaries here, and/or on my web domain.

Harvey Kailin had scanned the text of the English Translation from RHC’s work, and posted it on the Internet. There were some OCR scanning errors, like two words placed together with no “space” between the two words, etc.. He changed the Greek "Ekklesia" to read “summon-out communities” and I changed that to “assemblies”. I updated some archaic words, too. I’ve got a better English update, mostly using the Public Domain WEB Bible, that should be ready for the public sometime this year.

Blessings.;)

Clifton
Mar 21st 2008, 12:32 PM
As far as I can tell you’ve only provided 2 arguments, both of which don’t seem plausible, the 1st argument was translators just left a word our or didn’t take into consideration a word, my response was to provide you several mainline translations that all rendered the passage in similar fashion. This “mainline” adjective seems to be limited to you. I got a count of 24 translations that rendered the word “soon” against 55 translations that give a better reading. So I dug into my aged English dictionaries, etc., (which I SHOULD have done long before now), and much to my astonishment, the word was valid in Medieval English and Old English - the archaic meaning of “soon” is “fast; quick” – IOW, it is archaic, and with the very 1st English Translation where it also occurs ("soone"), they understood it properly within its context;

The archaic meaning in the last century was not obsolete (and still might not be), so because of this, it is in one of the three categories of definitions of “Soon” - but I do not see it as a proper word to render in Revelation for today’s American English, because of the misreading and out of context of it;

But, I think I can grunt out an excuse for it; perhaps in other English Speaking Countries it may be okay, but the context is what makes the difference anyway:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show His servants the things which must come to pass quickly. And He made it known by sending it through His angel to His servant John, who testified to the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things as He saw, both the things that are and those that must happen after these.
Revelation 1:1-2 Complete Apostles' Bible:hmm: MS Word is flagging the word “quickly” as a grammar error – insists that a question mark should come after it. Never knew Microsoft was involved in Textual Criticism! :spin:

This final phrase quoted above is reiterated in 1:19; the above scripture quote utilized "The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text" (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982; 2nd ed., 1985) by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad. If you have NKJV, you will sometimes see what is called “M-Text” Notes which refer to this particular Majority Text Greek New Testament;

The reading is also included in "The Greek New Testament according to the Byzantine Textform" (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing Company, 2002) by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, but is bracketed due the families of the “An” and “Q” texts of Revelation being closely divided (if I remember correctly, that would be a count of around 2500 MSS back in the 1990’s A.D.). Both these Greek New Testaments agree about 99.75% with each other.

Anyway, in regards to Revelation 1, I have given an example of the Present Tense Indicative Mood in one or more previous posts in this thread (e.g. Post #130, Page 9 of this thread). The unfolding of “things” (actually a word for the literal “what”) were already and had been in progress and in continuous / repetitive motion, are, and are to continue. This makes sense with the verbs in Revelation Chapter 1, which reveal that. Some people call it a “reiteration of things”. They will at some time, in the near or far future come to a closure, a “move from the imperfect to the perfect.” There are no specific Future Tense Verbs in the above quote of Revelation 1:1-2. This would be “included” in the Present Tense Indicative Mood since it is PROGRESSIVE, as was my example in Post #130 of “I go to school.” Another example: "In Whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in spirit." Eph 2:22. It is ‘The Verb’ for the Bible Revelation that some Greek Students see it as outlines of 6000+ years of history – the historic-contemporary view.

A brief moment of being out of the spirit of the OP:
Oddly, a third definition of “soon” is:
“in agreement with one's choice or preference: WILLINGLY *I'd just as soon walk as drive*”
I thought the saying would be “I’d just assume walk as drive”! Perhaps I knew better in my glorious youthful days. :D As for my previous comments about some of the English Bibles not taking into account the preposition, I had pointed out that it did not matter since ταχει is a Dative Case Noun anyway, which in itself forms a preposition, in this case, the word “with” – The Greek εν just puts the point on association, thus, the duplex of “with” is combined into one – the pocket dictionary type gives the word “speed” – In English, we have a few words derived from tachos / tachys / tachisten: tachistoscope, tachometer, tachycardia, isotach, ombrotachometer, and hard to tell what else – the meaning of rapidity of motion and speed remained intact for the formation of these words.

Admittedly, I had been accustomed to being more literal, but I have since learned that some had taken the liberty to combine the preposition and the noun into an adverb, even the two Modern Greek New Testaments I have. This is where an equivalence method (formal, dynamic, etc.) employed came into play. Having checked the grammar, and the words used, this is fine here to do.

Continued later in next post for this reply…

Clifton
Mar 22nd 2008, 01:12 PM
…Continued from Previous post for this reply to Post #102..


Why don't you provide me the post number or link to the post you think addressed this argument, because I have reviewed your replies and I don't see the argument addressed by you. As I told you, I don't care if Alcazar's system is supported or not, that has no bearing on the discussion. The reason I keep repeating stuff is that I don't think you adequately addressed the argument. I have more than adequately addressed things here, and it is not an argument to me, it is my defense of the scriptures, languages, and grammar. Being a Christian is a “state of progression”, and everything in the Bible and the things connected to it (History, etc.) does not “all at once fall in our lap” when we are “born from above (John 3:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:3;&version=47;))”, so it take years of studies, even in today’s technological age. In my 36 years of Christianity, I know I clanged on things in the last Century that were quite aberrant. I grew weary of the diversities and had an interest in what the underlying languages had to say, however, since 1989, technology is what really sped up learning a lot more, in addition to reviewing everything I could. A view that Revelation 1:1 is referring to “what” (e.g. “[these] things”) that had not already started is an aberrant view.


The only way your argument would work in this case is if they all conspired together, again not likely. And again, it is not an argument on my end – it is simply defending the scriptures on my part. The Greek is the Greek, and that cannot be changed it in reality, no more than say, if you were a foreigner that learned English, John Doe would not be able to change your grammar and dictionary tools for English, if John Doe were to attempt to make English words say something that the grammar, context, and dictionaries would not allow.

On the “conspired” remark, well, considering we are counting all the way back to the very first English Bible, 1385 Wycliffe, your statement about poor readings being “conspired” and that that is “The only way” it could have happened is preposterous. I have pointed out one or more times, that various English Versions have gave poor readings here and there, and this is pointed out by the Greeks, and the teachers – they often use examples of this Bible rendering verses another Bible Rendering. Some poor renderings does not necessarily make a Bible Version all bad – some of them of with poor renderings here and there, and I still use them to quote in forums/groups. And while we have established that the word “soon” was better understood in context in Medieval and Old English, the context is what matters, as conveyed in the first part of this reply.

The rest of your post has already been addressed, here within these two posts, and previous posts.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 23rd 2008, 12:49 PM
Check out the Websters’s definition you provided, all the translations that render the passage with “soon”, “must shortly come to pass”, “must quickly come to pass” are all translations that render the passage, “εν ταχει” with the “concept” of “without delay”.

“Your” concept of “without delay”, is not in the Greek and scriptures of Revelation 1 and makes no sense with the context – and as I already pointed out, your concept depends on a rewriting of other contexts and on a different Greek word for that, which I have already expressed in the post you replied to, The Greek Ταχυ <5035> (which would be the closest of the Greek stem Ταχ) - and not to mention, I have provided you a link that you can navigate through the Ταχ words, Strong’s #5029 – 5036. Let’s try this again, with a tad bit of added clarity:

http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5029

Near the top right of your Browser’s window at the forementioned, you will see a double set of orange-colored angle brackets “<<” and another set, “>>”

Once you review the lexicon of one form, you can click in the “>>” and that will take you to the "next-in-line word/Strong’s number"; and continue to do that until you get to Strong’s #5036 (that is the last one for the Greek stem Ταχ).

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 24th 2008, 01:21 AM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, like I’ve demonstrated there are several translations that back up my viewpoint and you’ve yet to give a solid answer addressing why all the translators of those translations seemingly went brain dead when it comes to their rendering of the passage. Why you keeping bringing up Alcazar I don’t understand. Perhaps you are gaining an understanding of how weak your response has been and therefore need to discredit my position by using the logical fallacy of cause and effect,

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html)


No Greek New Testament “backups” your viewpoint, nor non-altering methods, and I have given plenty of solid answers, which folks holding aberrations just do not want to hear. And my response has not been weak when weighed with the Greek and context – the weakness is on your end because you have to alter the Greek and Context, and your thinking is extremely rare (I’ve come across about a half dozen or so in your mode out thousands over the past several decades);

And the idea that translators went brain dead is your terminology – not familiar with that one. Generally what I have used to for nearly 2 decades concerning the terminology is that they just made some blunders or gave some poor readings – some of them appear the need to come out with revisions and updates for a very good reason. KJV made the error of putting “Easter” into its text, which left a bad taste in the mouths of scholars and commentators, as well as the average Christian – so now the KJVO adherents have to “conjure” up these “lengthy essays” to falsely make the word legitimate – though some translations decided to use the transliteration word “pascha” (etc.) in their text which sure set things straight.

You may not adhere to the totality of the Alcazar system, but you are “influenced” by some of his lingering debris in the U.S.A.


Friend, the burden is upon you to prove that the translators who rendered the passage with the concept that these things would be fulfilled “without delay” is incorrect is upon you, not me. Clearly you have a different understanding of the rules of the 1st Century common Greek grammar than what those who translated the passage “the things that must soon take place”. I’m beginning to think you don’t understand all the issues at play with the passage, otherwise you could provide a better response than just indicating they are wrong. There is no “burden” upon me to prove what the Greek says, no more than it would have been if I had started with Japanese language 14+ years ago to represent what the Japanese words say. It is a matter of graciousness if I show you definitions, but for the Greek, I have done that and more. Your statement “Clearly you have a different understanding of the rules of the 1st Century common Greek grammar” is absolutely false, and I think you know that. Koine Greek was in effect for 700 years. I have had 14 years with it – how long have you had? Huh? Since you are you not experienced with it, am I to dismiss the teachers in their classes and books, and pretend the Greeks were babbling in unknown tongues, and change their grammar, and even now as we see, English and its grammar, for you? Should I trash all my sources as well, even in English, for you that is not experienced with Greek? Now, come on, I believe you are smarter than that and know better. And as your own text shows in the same chapter, those things coming with speed had already been coming and were coming and were to continue to come.


Sure you have. The translators were brain dead, left out a word and contradicted the 1st Century rules of common Greek grammar. What I recommend to you is to go online or to the Book Store and buy a training manual, Learn New Testament Book. I guess the price has doubled since I got mine, but from what I seen, they come with CDs now (I did not even have a CD-Player when I bought mine).

Somebody on the board here posted a link which uses Apple Quicktime. – So the Web Browser(s) will require the QuickTime “plugin” into the browser - the video sessions are quite lengthy and you will need speakers:

http://www.thebible.net/video/greek/

Now, one of the sites I use, to keep up with things, is:

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/grkindex.htm


You can’t get around the fact the letter was written to specific people for a specific purpose just like Matt 24 was a warning for that generation. The people the author wrote to shared in a real tribulation together. I understand in a sense Christ always comes, but that does not negate the fact He spoke of a real judgment that occurred in spectacular detail in accordance with His instructions in the 1st Century. I am not trying to “get around” any facts but am “sticking with them.”


Are we not discussing whether or not the word “soon” should be in the text? Doesn’t soon provide the concept of “without delay” No. The word for that is “PRONTO”. And since things were already progressing, “soon” does not even make sense for the context of Chapter 1 of the Bible Revelation in the manner you say it is. BTW, part of the definition of “gimomai” is “exist” – that also squashes your view point as well. In the older Revelation, which we been terming as DSS (I am not sure which name you have decided to call it, since I provided the link Revelation Q to see the other names used), it states:

4. (1:19) Write the things that you have
seen, and the things that are, and
the things that will come after;
5. (1:20) The mystery of the seven
stars which fill my hands, and the
seven golden candles, blazing with
eternal light. The seven stars are
the Angels of the Heavenly Father,
and the seven candles are the
Angels of the Earthly Mother.
(º) And the spirit of man is the flame,
that streams between the starlight
and the glowing candle; A bridge of
holy light between Heaven and
Earth."

“are” (what has been “currently” and “was” taking place), and “will come after”, (which will take place.)

Continued in follow up…

Clifton
Mar 24th 2008, 03:21 PM
A proto-martyr “faithful one” as Antipas, observed by many Christians across the world each April 11, though somewhat limited in our protestant (we do not pray to saints of the past), which we should see as an important precious part in our hearts (along with the others of course, but Antipas is an example we should follow note since he was the one named in Revelation 2:3), and you can only reply this way. … Those links were extracted from the other thread you were reading that brought you here – what does Harold Camping have to do with anything regarding Antipas, other than referencing him like so many others have? I have read many pages contributed to Antipas (the spelling of his name does vary in various texts).


You lost me here,

Sorry – made a typo – it’s not Revelation 2:3, but Revelation 2:13 where Antipas is referenced. He was roasted alive on April 11, 93 A.D. (is that relief?), thus, it has been a tradition for Christians to remember him each April 11 and the important part in how he is mentioned in Revelation 2 – some, non-protestants especially, pray to the saint for their teeth. Of course, as Protestants, we do not pray to dead saints. Besides, some have no teeth or, like me, have a full set of dentures. :D


The letter is the book of Revelation, I don’t know that it does have anything to do with Anitpas, at least the one you spoke of. Methinks you have been too caught up in textual criticism. It doesn’t sound Chinese to me, but beyond the first clause, I do not know if I can decipher your statement here;

Given the discoveries of new evidence in recent centuries, and circumstance in regard to the Bible Revelation, I would hardly call the whole book a ‘letter’ (singular). Sure, it contained either one letter to all the assemblies or seven letters to the assemblies. I believe the latter, due to my comments in a previous post in this thread. Nonetheless, it may have been “one letter” to all the assemblies (several copies of an original to the seven assemblies).

Antipas (another form for “Antipater”) of Pergamos (spelled Pergamum in many English Bibles) has nothing to do with Textual Criticism, though his name has had spelling variants, such as Anteipas (e.g. Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament and other sources). He’s been defined as the “proto-martyr” of the Bible Revelation, so he’s an important figure for us students and the teachers for that book. Obviously he is not mentioned in the Paulines, etc., since those are texts pertaining to earlier times.

Blessings.

markedward
Mar 24th 2008, 11:00 PM
Sorry – made a typo – it’s not Revelation 2:3, but Revelation 2:13 where Antipas is referenced. He was roasted alive on April 11, 93 A.D. (is that relief?)Allegedly. Put bluntly, this is merely Christian "tradition" that arose possibly circa 1000 AD in the Greek Orthodox church, long after the days that the Revelaton had been written. Obviously, that the story of Antipas' death came about so many centuries later would be comparable to me coming up with a story on how Tryphena (from the epistle of Romans) had died.

Simply; there isn't any reliable source that tells us who this Antipas was or when he had died, so any information that we have on Antipas (other than him being a Christian, a faithful witness, and martyred in Pergamum) is hearsay.

Clifton
Mar 24th 2008, 11:33 PM
Allegedly. Put bluntly, this is merely Christian "tradition" that arose possibly circa 1000 AD in the Greek Orthodox church, long after the days that the Revelaton had been written. Obviously, that the story of Antipas' death came about so many centuries later would be comparable to me coming up with a story on how Tryphena (from the epistle of Romans) had died.

Simply; there isn't any reliable source that tells us who this Antipas was or when he had died, so any information that we have on Antipas (other than him being a Christian, a faithful witness, and martyred in Pergamum) is hearsay.

You have issues with the likes of The Byzantine hagiographer Simeon Metaphrastes (900-984 AD) and / or his 10 volume collection called "The Menologion", and/or do you think the MSS containing the name was interpolated into there? (I'm aware that some MSS are without the name).

I am aware of the tradition, and of course, there are other traditions, some of which we still hold on to this date. It comes as of no surprise that some traditions came about later, but I thought I understood that the "tradition" you refer to was already in play during Metaphrastes' time.

There is supposed to be a reference in Vol. VIII of the Ante-Nicene Father - Maybe I'll look into it tonight or tomorrow - it is a tedious task going through those.

Bear in mind also that there are spelling variations to this name. I did some research and I can find no other "Antipas" other than the earlier "Herod Antipas".

If you do not believe that "Antipater / Anteipas / Antipas" was a later interpolation into Revelation, then when do you think Antipas lived? He, being such an important figure, does not seem to be mentioned in the other NT Books - so I find it unlikely was bishop of an earlier time than as is already noted.

Blessings.

markedward
Mar 25th 2008, 12:57 AM
I'm not suggesting that the individual Antipas didn't exist, or that his name was inserted into the Revelation at a later date.

What I am saying is that no one can certainly identify who this Antipas is, let alone when he was martyred. So that someone nearly a thousand year later said "Oh, Antipas? He was roasted alive in the year 93 AD" without any historical records to even suggest such a thing is just not credible.

Let's put it this way:

Hypothetically, say someone found a letter of George Washington's. In this letter G.W. mentions an individual named "John Hastings" or something. In passing, G.W. says John Hastings had died in the war (the Revolutionary War of the US). And that's all he says about John Hastings. So now it's present day, a little over two centuries later, and let's say a George Washington enthusiast writes a biography on G.W., and in this book the biographer states that John Hastings had been killed in the Revolutionary War as a result of being shot in the foot and it got infected. Then say a bunch of people read this biography, and everyone remembers John Hastings as the guy who was killed by a foot infection. We have a problem now: the author has no historical records as evidence for the manner of this John Hastings death, so for the author to say that John Hastings died via a foot infection is completely false and nothing but an intentional embellishment. Do you agree?

That is exactly what it is with this person Antipas. Antipas is mentioned only in passing reference in the Revelation, as a martyr who was killed in Pergamum. But it is only about a thousand years afterwards that anyone has any historical records that Antipas was a bishop and he was burned alive inside of a metal bull in 93 AD with no pre-existing historical records to evident such a thing?

In such a case, the story we have today of this Antipas person is incredibly unreliable, and everything we think we know about him should be discarded other than what we know of him through the Revelation: a) He was a Christian, b) He was martyred, and c) His death was at Pergamum.

I think that Antipas was, obviously, a contemporary of John's, but there is no credible source that tells us when Antipas died or even how he died other than that he was martyred.

Clifton
Mar 25th 2008, 02:51 AM
I'm not suggesting that the individual Antipas didn't exist, or that his name was inserted into the Revelation at a later date.

What I am saying is that no one can certainly identify who this Antipas is, let alone when he was martyred. So that someone nearly a thousand year later said "Oh, Antipas? He was roasted alive in the year 93 AD" without any historical records to even suggest such a thing is just not credible.

Well, just "who" is it that you are referring to, and how do you know what historical evidence they had before them? Are you referring to the extant "acts of antipas"? And what name was used? "Antipas", "Arrivas", the longer uncontracted "Antipater", "Timotheon", or what? And what about those that followed him, at Pergamum (Agathonice, Attalus, Carpus, and Polybus)?

There's nothing about "Antipas" in the other NT books, so when do you think he suffered martyrdom, irregardless of what his real name was? It is not that we do not know about Antipas "after" Revelation, but "before" it. The Commentator Andreas says he had read about the account. It is the works Andreas, known as the "An" texts that were used along with the "Q" texts in constructing a workable and more probable text of Revelation for the Byzantine Majority by Robinson and Pierpont.

I sense perhaps you are yet to know about some analogs, commentaries, etc. (be they Roman or whatever). See, we do not depend only on ECWs (Earlier Christian Writers) for everything, for example, The Heathen Roman Tacitus provides us with the earliest evidence of Christ's existence on Earth in the flesh, and he gives us an account comparable to Josephus about the chariots in the sky, and so on.

I had already done much research on this figure and had reached the point to the satisfactory condition that it concurs with the legend and texts. There was ONE exception that seems to be a little help, and that's my Greek Dictionary. I have read it several times and cannot seem to comprehend what it is saying - I feel there is some typographical error(s) in the definition. Since you have a young fresh brilliant brain, perhaps you can analyze and decipher it: :P (best I can tell, it looks like it is saying the name was used for Pergamos being "against" Pan, but before that, it looks like it says the name Antipas refers to the god Pan.)

493 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=493). Αντιπας. Antipas; masc. proper noun. A shorter form of Antipater, otherwise unknown. He is mentioned in Revelation 2:13. Later, Greek tradition made him bishop of Pergamum, martyred under Domitian by being thrown into a heated brazen bull which stood at the temple of Diana and so being roasted alive. The name has been allegorized as anti (473), against, and pas (3956), all. The two words would mean against all. The character of the Revelation, again, admits the hypothesis that the name refers to the god Pan. Pan was worshipped at Ephesus and in many cities in Asia Minor – though no record of his worship at Pergamum is in existence – under the strong influences of Arcadian and Peloponnesian cults. It is possible, therefore, that the Church at Pergamum is praised for its opposition to the heathen Pan. See Balaam (903), Balaam; Nikolaites (3531), Nicolaitans. THIS A BRIEF REVIEW OF “The Complete WordStudy Dictionary New Testament”, © 1992 Spiros Zodhiates / AMG International. Page 498:1.

Blessings.

Teke
Mar 25th 2008, 01:47 PM
Well, just "who" is it that you are referring to, and how do you know what historical evidence they had before them? Are you referring to the extant "acts of antipas"? And what name was used? "Antipas", "Arrivas", the longer uncontracted "Antipater", "Timotheon", or what? And what about those that followed him, at Pergamum (Agathonice, Attalus, Carpus, and Polybus)?

There's nothing about "Antipas" in the other NT books, so when do you think he suffered martyrdom, irregardless of what his real name was? It is not that we do not know about Antipas "after" Revelation, but "before" it. The Commentator Andreas says he had read about the account. It is the works Andreas, known as the "An" texts that were used along with the "Q" texts in constructing a workable and more probable text of Revelation for the Byzantine Majority by Robinson and Pierpont.

I sense perhaps you are yet to know about some analogs, commentaries, etc. (be they Roman or whatever). See, we do not depend only on ECWs (Earlier Christian Writers) for everything, for example, The Heathen Roman Tacitus provides us with the earliest evidence of Christ's existence on Earth in the flesh, and he gives us an account comparable to Josephus about the chariots in the sky, and so on.

I had already done much research on this figure and had reached the point to the satisfactory condition that it concurs with the legend and texts. There was ONE exception that seems to be a little help, and that's my Greek Dictionary. I have read it several times and cannot seem to comprehend what it is saying - I feel there is some typographical error(s) in the definition. Since you have a young fresh brilliant brain, perhaps you can analyze and decipher it: :P (best I can tell, it looks like it is saying the name was used for Pergamos being "against" Pan, but before that, it looks like it says the name Antipas refers to the god Pan.)

493 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=493). Αντιπας. Antipas; masc. proper noun. A shorter form of Antipater, otherwise unknown. He is mentioned in Revelation 2:13. Later, Greek tradition made him bishop of Pergamum, martyred under Domitian by being thrown into a heated brazen bull which stood at the temple of Diana and so being roasted alive. The name has been allegorized as anti (473), against, and pas (3956), all. The two words would mean against all. The character of the Revelation, again, admits the hypothesis that the name refers to the god Pan. Pan was worshipped at Ephesus and in many cities in Asia Minor – though no record of his worship at Pergamum is in existence – under the strong influences of Arcadian and Peloponnesian cults. It is possible, therefore, that the Church at Pergamum is praised for its opposition to the heathen Pan. See Balaam (903), Balaam; Nikolaites (3531), Nicolaitans. THIS A BRIEF REVIEW OF “The Complete WordStudy Dictionary New Testament”, © 1992 Spiros Zodhiates / AMG International. Page 498:1.

Blessings.

It's page 195 in my Zodhiates "TCWDNT". I think the comments stated there are slanted in favor of a particular theological view. And it's not consistent with all the other proofs, including scripture on prepositional usage.

Antipas = like the Father The preposition is used the same as in "antichrist"= like christ. Look at the Srongs definitions. Even if it is not an actual person it can refer to Christians in general, who stood against the pagans.

Some info I've found on Pergamos, background, Pergamos- a city of Mysia famous for the worship of Esculapius, to whom the title soter (savior) was given and whose emblem was the serpent. Identified with Apollo (cp. Acts 16:16). Some trace the Babylonian priesthood as removing to Pergamos.

From which 1st century Christianity refers to the city as a seat of idol worship. Pergamos was the first city in Asia to build a temple dedicated to the worship of a living emperor. Hence, satan's throne, where he holds court, can also indicate the altar where Caesar was worshiped as lord, and/or where the Roman govenor sat in his judgment seat, dealing out capital punishment by the "law of the sword".

Makes better sense to me. Any Christians there could easily face martyrdom in it's capital punishment.

Clifton
Mar 25th 2008, 04:55 PM
It's page 195 in my Zodhiates "TCWDNT". I think the comments stated there are slanted in favor of a particular theological view. And it's not consistent with all the other proofs, including scripture on prepositional usage.

Antipas = like the Father The preposition is used the same as in "antichrist"= like christ. Look at the Srongs definitions. Even if it is not an actual person it can refer to Christians in general, who stood against the pagans.

Some info I've found on Pergamos, background, Pergamos- a city of Mysia famous for the worship of Esculapius, to whom the title soter (savior) was given and whose emblem was the serpent. Identified with Apollo (cp. Acts 16:16). Some trace the Babylonian priesthood as removing to Pergamos.

From which 1st century Christianity refers to the city as a seat of idol worship. Pergamos was the first city in Asia to build a temple dedicated to the worship of a living emperor. Hence, satan's throne, where he holds court, can also indicate the altar where Caesar was worshiped as lord, and/or where the Roman govenor sat in his judgment seat, dealing out capital punishment by the "law of the sword".

Makes better sense to me. Any Christians there could easily face martyrdom in its capital punishment.

Thanks for sharing. You appear to have the same "TCWDNT" edition I do (1992). Overall, since I got it about 14 years ago, it has been very helpful in a variety of ways. But I did find it “wanting” (and “confusing”) in regards to its definition of Antipas <493 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=493)>;

And back when I researched this person, nothing I studied correlated to that of “TCWDNT”. It looks like the definition entry is incomplete, “as” if there was more original text to it, and a part, or parts, were edited out.

My Vine’s Dictionaries has no listing for Antipas. The Online Bible Greek Lexicon (a combination of TDNT & Strong’s) provides the same info you have provided:

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

493 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=493) Aντιπας Antipas an-tee’-pas

contracted for a compound of 473 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=473) and a derivative of 3962 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3962); ; n pr m

AV-Antipas 1; 1

Antipas =" like the father"

1) a Christian of Pergamos who suffered martyrdom

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

The TCWDNT should have left it like that one.

Nonetheless, from what I have studied, I am satisfied with the traditional tradition of Christians regarding Antipas, but the other Martyrs throughout history are in my heart as well.

Blessings.

Teke
Mar 25th 2008, 07:02 PM
Nonetheless, from what I have studied, I am satisfied with the traditional tradition of Christians regarding Antipas, but the other Martyrs throughout history are in my heart as well.

Blessings.


I agree. :amen:

Blessings to you also.:hug:

Clifton
Mar 25th 2008, 08:00 PM
BTW, I got “The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005” by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (Now deceased), in Acrobat Adobe PDF format. It is beautifully put together. Alternate Readings are in the side margins, and sub variants, and additionally, The NA27/UBS4 bracketed readings, are in the footnotes;

It includes the Accents, Breathings, etc., unlike the previous 1991 Edition (“The Byzantine-Majority Textform”). A lot of great info (in English) in the front and rear matters of the Book as well. There is a Deluxe Hardcover Edition Published by Chilton Book Publishing which can be purchased online or out in the stores, however, on Robinson’s site,. The PDF File (619 pages) is available for download at:

http://rpbyztxt.com/

In the middle column of the above mentioned web page is a section:

---



PDF Version of Text





The New Testament in the Original Greek - Byzantine Textform 2005 (http://rpbyztxt.com/RP2005_files/Complete2005RPByzNT.pdf)




(large file)



---

And you can access the file by the link in the section (loading it up in your browser and saving a copy to your computer hard disk, or using the Browser’s Context Menu and select “Save Link As”). IMO, a must have for NT Greek Readers, and those acquainted with it. But also, even for the person without Greek Knowledge, well, again, there is a lot of good info in the front and rear matters of the Book as well, which is in English.

Oh, the OP of this thread is “Revelation: The Greek”, isn’t it? Yes, folks, “The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005” DOES include the other 26 standard NT Books as well :P

My personal preference concerning Greek New Testaments has been the Byzantine and Majority archetypes. I guess Robinson and/or Pierpont dropped the word “majority” out of the title, because, the MSS have to undergo other tests (about 7 I believe) before they would include it their Greek New Testament. I have had this 2005 version as a computer module for Bible Software for a while now, but the methodology of the critical apparatuses in this manner is a new thing for me, but I’ll get to hang of it – I’m catching on already. :pp

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 26th 2008, 03:52 PM
Gee then why isn’t 70AD mentioned as a past event in any of the books of the NT? The book of Revelation couldn’t have been writing pre 70AD because the Bible wasn’t complied until after 70AD? That is a sound argument? Friend, you don't know what governs my thinking.

PaulT

I’m not quite sure whether I can decipher this or not, other than guesses, which are not consistent with each other. Can you please be more detailed and descriptive, and include any footnotes, endnotes, and/or marginal notes as well?

Also, I never made any such statement that “the Bible wasn’t complied until after 70AD” nor did I even mention the term 70AD. I mentioned 1970 in re of the aberrancies that have grown at a higher rate than before that.

I have completed the new printer manual now. :pp I greatly appreciate that you have gave me some time to catch up – so please feel free to come out and play now. :P

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 26th 2008, 10:44 PM
Well the couple of folks that you have used so far wouldn't seem to fit in the category of "reputable scholars". Pointing out the illogical nature of your position is an “accusation”?

PaulT



You have pointed out no illogical nature of my position (which is with the Greek, English, and Grammar), you have merely try to change words and contexts, thus, at this rate, all you can do is what anyone does that changes words, grammar, etc - falsely accuse others.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 26th 2008, 11:08 PM
Sure, whatever, is still doesn't mean it isn't a theory.
Not in dreams of aberrancies, no.:D


What has this to do with the argument?

PaulT

No "argument" for me. Perhaps this refers to a post you were not aware at the time of knowing how to following the post(s) back? It refers to victims of confusion.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 27th 2008, 08:56 PM
It appears you’ve about run out of steam and I can assure you I have as well. Thank you for your thoughts time and energy.

Your welcome, and thank you too.

The way things go around here at home for me, I run out of steam all the time :lol: But that is not an issue for me on the computer – I can generally just lay down almost any time I want.

If you are out of steam, I suggest to just take your time in correspondences. I do participate in other threads here as well as other forums, so I don’t commit totally to just one thread all the time. Plus their are other groups elsewhere I am involved with.

More rambling coming up…:D

Clifton
Mar 28th 2008, 12:44 PM
It is my understanding it was included in the Canon of Scripture developed by Orthodoxy in reply to Marcion, 144AD, that is where the Muratorian Canon came from and in which the book is mentioned.
The Muratorian Canon did not “come from” Marcion. Marcion did his own thing and Mental Health outlets were not available at his time – he mutilated a lot of texts – don’t quite remember anymore what he mutilated – I don’t think Revelation was one of them - but do remember he rejected the Tanak. We see The Muratorian Canon as the first official canon that we have record of, since as far as we know, the books were not tampered with by that compiler. Now tampering, whether accidentally or intentionally, before The Muratorian Canon? That is another thing.

BTW, there was an overwhelming fudge work of Revelation that none of us have seen – if I remember correctly, it was done by one named Cerinthus (not sure if this is the correct name) – in that edited work the so-called millennium was, well, to put it into today’s words, get naked and party until you drop! Obviously many people rejected this text, and some had, and have confused it with John’s Apocalypse as being rejected (even though at times throughout history, here and there, John’s Apocalypse was not an accepted).

Later.

PaulT
Mar 28th 2008, 09:53 PM
I’m not quite sure whether I can decipher this or not, other than guesses, which are not consistent with each other. Can you please be more detailed and descriptive, and include any footnotes, endnotes, and/or marginal notes as well?


Also, I never made any such statement that “the Bible wasn’t complied until after 70AD” nor did I even mention the term 70AD. I mentioned 1970 in re of the aberrancies that have grown at a higher rate than before that.

I have completed the new printer manual now. I greatly appreciate that you have gave me some time to catch up – so please feel free to come out and play now.

Blessings.

Originally Posted by Clifton
That would be impossible since the Bible Revelation was not totally compiled

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clifton
(of recent and long aged documents and sources) until beyond Vespasian’s time. The Seer "transfers himself in thought to the time of Vespasian, interpreting past events under the form of a prophecy, after the manner of apocalyptic writers" (Swete). Such a procedure belongs to Jewish apocalyptic but not to Christian, until we advance well into the 2nd century.

Sorry, but you’re “thinking” is governed by a system invented in the 16th Century, further innovated in the 19th Century, and even more so after 1970, to counter the “doomsday” prophets – and after all, the schools of hyper-futurism does the same things hyper-preterism does – reshapes and rewrites scriptures, disjoints snippets from their context via “selecting processing” (picking snippets of verses here and there, thereby forcing a change of context), to fix (aka “support”) their views – same thing as done with many religions and systems – it is nothing new under our sun.

Blessings.



In the above quote You seemed to be suggesting the book of Revelation in the NT was written post 70AD.

My question,
Gee then why isn’t 70AD mentioned as a past event in any of the books of the NT? The book of Revelation couldn’t have been writing pre 70AD because the Bible wasn’t complied until after 70AD? That is a sound argument? Friend, you don't know what governs my thinking.

PaulT

goes to the idea that an event as momentous as the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem would not go unnoticed by a Christian of Jewish origins who was writing to folks who were being persecuted by 2nd Temple Jews, Rev 2:9

When did Vespasian reign? I think his reign ended in 79AD, which would mean you statement, “That would be impossible since the Bible Revelation was not totally compiled(of recent and long aged documents and sources) until beyond Vespasian’s time” occurred after 70AD.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 28th 2008, 09:54 PM
You have pointed out no illogical nature of my position (which is with the Greek, English, and Grammar), you have merely try to change words and contexts, thus, at this rate, all you can do is what anyone does that changes words, grammar, etc - falsely accuse others.

Blessings.

Sorry, I think your claim that so many got it wrong is illogical.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 28th 2008, 09:57 PM
The Muratorian Canon did not “come from” Marcion. Marcion did his own thing and Mental Health outlets were not available at his time – he mutilated a lot of texts – don’t quite remember anymore what he mutilated – I don’t think Revelation was one of them - but do remember he rejected the Tanak. We see The Muratorian Canon as the first official canon that we have record of, since as far as we know, the books were not tampered with by that compiler. Now tampering, whether accidentally or intentionally, before The Muratorian Canon? That is another thing.

BTW, there was an overwhelming fudge work of Revelation that none of us have seen – if I remember correctly, it was done by one named Cerinthus (not sure if this is the correct name) – in that edited work the so-called millennium was, well, to put it into today’s words, get naked and party until you drop! Obviously many people rejected this text, and some had, and have confused it with John’s Apocalypse as being rejected (even though at times throughout history, here and there, John’s Apocalypse was not an accepted).

Later.

I didn't say the Muratorian Canon came from Marcion I said it was developed in response to him.

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 29th 2008, 11:53 AM
Why all the banter, does this mean you don’t have a recognized scholar who endorses Zodhiates opinion on the subject? You bet, I'm in error about a lot of stuff, problem for you here is that 18 recognized solid translations, one of your own sources, the immediate context and the writings of the ECF's all support my position. Perhaps you speciality isn't so special.
False.


Friend, I don’t have any problem with what the Greek says, I just have a problem with your theory of what the Greek says. The fact you haven’t been able to offer a better argument than the translators went brain dead goes to show the weakness of your position.
False. And Greek is not a “theory.” – do you look into an English Dictionary at a word, and say, “oh, that’s their theory?” On second thought, please don’t answer that, because I see you do it for the Greek Dictionaries.


LOL, you actions speak louder than words, if he was so well recognized by the academic community you wouldn’t have had to waste over 112 words above in not answering my simple question, you could have provided quotes explaining that “he is the MOST recognized authority on Koine Greek”.
You pulled my words out of context. I said:
I’ve been in the modem world for nearly 20 years, and have seen what is written about him in others, especially the bgreek groups – collecting it all together from what I have witnessed in the networks and the internet, he is the MOST recognized authority on Koine Greek – I have seen this more of him than BDAG, BAGD.

I believe you are quite capable of doing a Google search yourself for Zodhiates, or whomever. You did not seem to recognize the name Wilbur N. Pickering, so that told me something: you must progress like the rest of us and not leap so quickly.


Friend I haven’t spun anything.
Then perhaps the internet transmissions are victimizing you by rewriting your text by the time they reach the end-users?


I’ve just simply pointed out the phrase in question is used to convey “without delay” and as I recall your response was something to the effect, “yes it can mean “without delay” but not in the manner you are using it” as if “without delay” can have a variety of manners.
This is already been covered. It takes a different Greek word and editing out parts of Revelation 1:1, and dismissing sufficient MSS of alternative readings. So I ask again, further noting this is a primary concordance, which word holds up your view?
How does your “point of view” match up with the following, by using the stems? Which one, or ones of the following are the Greek matching your point of view?
ταχυτητα (η): speed; gear* (* = added to Modern Greek: relative speed)
σινομα: soon.
σύντομα: soon.
σε λιγη ωρα: (clock/time wise) soon.
κοντός, κοντοί, κοντή, κοντές, κοντό, κοντά: shortly.
γρήγορα: quickly.
χωρίs καθυστέρηση: without delay.
αντωνυμία: pronto (actually, “pronto” is a shorter word for “without delay”).
παραχρημα: immediately, forthwith, instantly.
ευθεως: anon, as soon as, forthwith, immediately, shortly, straightwayI also did provide the links to the lexicons of the words constructed from the Greek ταχ stem, and yet, you did not respond. Perhaps you have begun to realize, that your view requires different words and contexts?


As you will recall we weren’t talking about the Greek dictionary at the time we were talking about the English dictionary and how the translators framed the English words that reflected the English translation of the Greek phrase.
Already covered.


I didn’t change anything, I just pointed out based on the definition you provided how utterly ludicrous AMG’s amazement would have been.
Sure you did. You just don’t like that the context and Greek, because it does not conform to your position which is deprived of common and logical sense. And AMG are a mere scratch on the surface compared to the many others whom recognize the change to the text and context you made.


As I pointed out earlier, KJV and NKJV have provided a proper reading, and I supplied the definitions of “shortly” and that it is a word before the 12th Century. Most readers, especially in the older days, recognized the structure of “shortly come to pass” versus “come to pass shortly”. You just choose to transpose the phrases and words to fix up your mistaken “take” on it – of course, when a Bible erroneously renders “soon”, well, that helps you out, doesn’t it? Even so, it does not line up with the Greek, which AMG, I, and others are looking at. Blessings.


Well seeing as how the KJV was rendered well after the 12 Century one wonders why you think a reading of the word prior to the 12th Century would have any bearing on the discussion. Nevertheless, I can see I’m not the only one practicing “jocundity”, your observation, “Most readers, especially in the older days, recognized the structure of “shortly come to pass” versus “come to pass shortly”.”, is a real hoot. It appears you need to go rethink that argument.

Now, please look word by word (accounting for each and every word word) in my quote and see what I said. You have changed the context of what I said. Perhaps a change of social circles is in order? I conveyed that I supplied the definitions of the word “shortly” and it has been in use since before the 12th Century – the context shows that I expressed it has a same meaning for at 900 years - you were just looking at the wrong entry for the context.

And there is no “argument” for me on my end, and “rethinking” is not an option or feasible here when the Greek and Context is before us.

I’m omitting parts of replies that have already been responded with context that is the same as previous replies.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 30th 2008, 12:16 AM
“Jap Consecution Footnotes” ? I wonder what bias they bring to the discussion to suggest this was written separate and distinct from the balance of the Revelation?:rofl: You’re cracking me up! I already posted to you info regarding the British Scholar Robert Henry Charles and so on. His 2 Volume work is where that footnote is extracted from. The project “Jap Consecution” is using that as one source. I’m using his summaries in the
“Revelation: Last 3 Chapters”
thread as well – sometimes I poke the summaries here and there throughout the board.

“Jap Consecution” is a work in progress since 2005, and besides PDF, will have a WordPerfect format available for anyone that wants it so they can use it for their own studies and make it their own – so, in regards to footnotes, endnotes, text boxes, summaries, headings, etc., anyone with WordPerfect (or another Word Processor, which is mostly likely capable of importing a WordPerfect File) can edit those: delete them, modify them, or add them to them;

The primary thing is to have the text given in a proper sequence, (relegating interpolations and marginal glosses to elsewhere), so people don’t have to depend on commentaries, etc. to knock their head back and forth and they read Revelation in their traditional sequence in today’s Bibles. Of course, even though “Jap Consecution” currently stands as a “work in progress”, the scripture text is readable. Mostly being used for this text is the Byzantine / Majority archetype. There are bits and pieces of editor’s notes, highlights, and so on, and the some “summaries” are stuck at the end of the file for the time being, but if you would like to see it in its current working state, here is the PDF file (about a 112 pages, so it's big: 2.2 MG):
http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/jap/japc.pdf

For a ZIPPED version of the WordPerfect File:
http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/jap/japc.zip

Continued…

Clifton
Mar 30th 2008, 12:25 AM
“And after these things” Rev 4:1, presumably the things the Angel had told him about the 7 churches right? “I looked up, and behold, a door standing open in heaven.” Sounds like a vision to me. Sounds like he is still in the “spirit” to me, I mean I haven’t seen any doors in the sky lately.

και <2532 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=2532)> Immediately <2112 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=2112)> I was in the Spirit. Behold, there was a throne set in heaven, and one sitting on the throne (Revelation 4:2 WEB)

I’m not going to ask you how on Earth that this “sounds like he is still in spirit to you”. Perhaps this is yet another scripture example you are not reading correctly, and that is why you haven’t seen any doors in the sky lately, per it metaphorical meaning? Please click on the 2112 above to see the lexicon entry – that looks like one of the words to me you were trying to replace the Greek εν ταχει with (you were kind of bouncing from one Greek word to another in the totality of your posts).

Let’s look at DSS Revelation (note that it is 13 seats / elders as opposed to 24 in the Bible Revelation):
Symbol usage:
‡ = differs from JAP (John’s APocalypse);
¥ = Greater differences.
º = No parallel noticed [yet?] with JAP.

Paragraphs 7ff:
(4:1) And then I looked, and behold, a door was opened in Heaven: And a voice which sounded from all sides, like a trumpet, spoke to me: "Come up here, And I will show you the things which must be hereafter."
(4:2)‡ And immediately I was there, in spirit, at the threshold of the open door. And I entered through the open door, into a sea of blazing light.
(4:3)¥ And in the midst of the blinding ocean of radiance was a throne: And on the throne sat one whose face was hidden. And there was a rainbow around about the throne, which looked like emerald.
(4:4)‡ And round about the throne were thirteen seats: And upon the seats I saw thirteen[3] elders[4] sitting, Clothed in white raiment; And their faces were hidden by swirling clouds of light.
(4:5) And seven lamps of fire burned before the throne, The fire of the Earthly Mother[5]. And seven stars of heaven shone before the throne, The fire of the Heavenly Father.
(4:6)‡ And before the throne there was a sea of glass like crystal: And reflected within it, were all the mountains and valleys of the Earth, And all the creatures abiding therein.
(4:10)‡ And the thirteen elders bowed down before the splendor of him, who sat upon the throne, whose face was hidden, and rivers of light streamed from their hands, one to the other,
(4:8)¥ And they cried, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
(4:11)¥ Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: For thou hast created all things."
- - - - - - - - -
Footnotes:
3 JAP has twenty-four.
4 Elders. Cp. Isaiah 24:23.
5 “Earthly Mother”, as opposed to “seven spirits” in JAP.
- - - - - - - - -

Oh, Mercy… I just can’t help myself – delight us with your “view(s) / concept(s)” of the word “immediately” (ευθεως) <2112> … "contiguously"? ;)

Back in a day or so.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 30th 2008, 02:30 AM
You have pointed out no illogical nature of my position (which is with the Greek, English, and Grammar), you have merely try to change words and contexts, thus, at this rate, all you can do is what anyone does that changes words, grammar, etc - falsely accuse others.

Blessings.
Sure I have, I've pointed out that according to you the guy's who tranlated the KJV, the NKJV, the ESV and a bunch of others simply missed the Greek grammar, that my friend is an illogical position.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 30th 2008, 02:54 AM
False.

Blessings.

Sure it’s false, then why do all 18 versions render the passage different than from what you claim is the only possibility based on the grammar.



False. And Greek is not a “theory.” – do you look into an English Dictionary at a word, and say, “oh, that’s their theory?” On second thought, please don’t answer that, because I see you do it for the Greek Dictionaries.
Blessings.

You are right, Greek isn’t theory, however my point is the way you handle the Greek is a theory, one not supported by those 18 major translations we identified.



You pulled my words out of context. I said:
I’ve been in the modem world for nearly 20 years, and have seen what is written about him in others, especially the bgreek groups – collecting it all together from what I have witnessed in the networks and the internet, he is the MOST recognized authority on Koine Greek – I have seen this more of him than BDAG, BAGD.
Blessings.
LOL, what words of yours did I pull out of context? The point is no scholar references Zod’s work. You anecdotal history doesn’t mean much in this discussion because you appear to have a world-view that stipulates the author of the book of Revelation in the NT was not inspired by God, you seem to think the book is nothing more than cut-n-paste compilation of prior writings.




I believe you are quite capable of doing a Google search yourself for Zodhiates, or whomever. You did not seem to recognize the name Wilbur N. Pickering, so that told me something: you must progress like the rest of us and not leap so quickly.
Blessings.

That’s the problem I have and haven’t found his work used by any Scholars, however on the other hand I’ve found where he himself admits his stuff is not for those who know Greek. So what we have here is you under the tutelage of a guy who claims his stuff isn’t for the Greek student claiming scholars schooled for years in the discipline of Greek translation didn’t get it right, I’d say that is an illogical position.



Then perhaps the internet transmissions are victimizing you by rewriting your text by the time they reach the end-users?
Blessings.

Perhaps,


This is already been covered. It takes a different Greek word and editing out parts of Revelation 1:1, and dismissing sufficient MSS of alternative readings. So I ask again, further noting this is a primary concordance, which word holds up your view?
How does your “point of view” match up with the following, by using the stems? Which one, or ones of the following are the Greek matching your point of view?
· ταχυτητα (η): speed; gear* (* = added to Modern Greek: relative speed)
· σινομα: soon.
· σύντομα: soon.
· σε λιγη ωρα: (clock/time wise) soon.
· κοντός, κοντοί, κοντή, κοντές, κοντό, κοντά: shortly.
· γρήγορα: quickly.
· χωρίs καθυστέρηση: without delay.
· αντωνυμία: pronto (actually, “pronto” is a shorter word for “without delay”).
· παραχρημα: immediately, forthwith, instantly.
· ευθεως: anon, as soon as, forthwith, immediately, shortly, straightway
I also did provide the links to the lexicons of the words constructed from the Greek ταχ stem, and yet, you did not respond. Perhaps you have begun to realize, that your view requires different words and contexts?
Blessings.

My view holds up just fine with the words used and the translations offered that don’t support or include your view.



Already covered.Blessings.

Right, I believe this had to do with your rendering of the Old English of the words, “must shortly” you were claiming a meaning that went out of date some 500 years prior to the translation.



Sure you did. You just don’t like that the context and Greek, because it does not conform to your position which is deprived of common and logical sense. And AMG are a mere scratch on the surface compared to the many others whom recognize the change to the text and context you made.
Blessings.

Why, if we were addressing and English translation would I give a hoot about the Greek Grammar? Evidently you’ve gotten lost in the shuffle. Many others, what translation committee recognizes what you claim the grammar will only allow for?



Now, please look word by word (accounting for each and every word word) in my quote and see what I said. You have changed the context of what I said. Perhaps a change of social circles is order? I conveyed that I supplied the definitions of the word “shortly” and it has been in use since before the 12th Century – the context shows that I expressed it has a same meaning for at 900 years - you were just looking at the wrong entry for the context.

And there is no “argument” for me on my end, and “rethinking” is not an option or feasible here when the Greek and Context is before us.

I’m omitting parts of replies that have already been responded with context that is the same as previous replies.

Blessings.

The definition wasn’t used the way you claim it was used after the 12th Century, go back and reread your source. Your argument and AMG’s amazement doesn’t hold water, which btw, it would seem is why Gill rendered his commentary in keeping with my position.

PaulT

PaulT
Mar 30th 2008, 02:55 AM
:rofl: You’re cracking me up! I already posted to you info regarding the British Scholar Robert Henry Charles and so on. His 2 Volume work is where that footnote is extracted from. The project “Jap Consecution” is using that as one source. I’m using his summaries in the
“Revelation: Last 3 Chapters”
thread as well – sometimes I poke the summaries here and there throughout the board.

“Jap Consecution” is a work in progress since 2005, and besides PDF, will have a WordPerfect format available for anyone that wants it so they can use it for their own studies and make it their own – so, in regards to footnotes, endnotes, text boxes, summaries, headings, etc., anyone with WordPerfect (or another Word Processor, which is mostly likely capable of importing a WordPerfect File) can edit those: delete them, modify them, or add them to them;

The primary thing is to have the text given in a proper sequence, (relegating interpolations and marginal glosses to elsewhere), so people don’t have to depend on commentaries, etc. to knock their head back and forth and they read Revelation in their traditional sequence in today’s Bibles. Of course, even though “Jap Consecution” currently stands as a “work in progress”, the scripture text is readable. Mostly being used for this text is the Byzantine / Majority archetype. There are bits and pieces of editor’s notes, highlights, and so on, and the some “summaries” are stuck at the end of the file for the time being, but if you would like to see it in its current working state, here is the PDF file (about a 112 pages, so it's big: 2.2 MG):
http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/jap/japc.pdf

For a ZIPPED version of the WordPerfect File:
http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/jap/japc.zip

Continued…

I'm glad I'm providing free entertainment, but it would appear you position that suggests 18 major translations simply got it wrong is the real slide-splitter.
PaulT

Clifton
Mar 30th 2008, 03:55 AM
Thanks but what is your basis for presupposing the Dead Sea Scrolls had any impact on John’s work, other than they both use a similar “style” of writing?Apparently, you never even looked at the file – at least a person that not influenced by aberrations that would have, and would not make such a comment. “Style” is not an issue. The Seer had his own unique style unlike any other. To date, as far as we know, there are no writings or compilations by The Seer.


Thanks for the link but who wrote the PDF?
The texts have been contributed to the Jewish Sect called the Essenes, but some historians, theologians, scholars, critics, etc. do not agree. Perhaps they are meat-eaters since the Essenes were vegetarians? At least the modern ones are. Texts from Qumran usually are identified as Qumran, Essene, or DSS.


Here is a link to a book that discusses the “fragments” found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that are considered to be written in a similar “style” as the book of Revelation. I don’t see Revelation, “DDS” discussed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXnB4CRpUC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=Book+o f+Revelation+in+the+Dead+Sea+Scrolls&source=web&ot s=E3eR62Z-2z&sig=kDYDRHSiU5cMKge-yyIYyEt1uow&hl=en#PPA375,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXnB4CRpUC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=Book+of+Revelation+in+the+Dead+Sea+Scrolls&source=web&ots=E3eR62Z-2z&sig=kDYDRHSiU5cMKge-yyIYyEt1uow&hl=en#PPA375,M1),
I reviewed some pages (they will only allow you to view but so many). It appeared to me that the author(s) were simply referencing some Revelation (and it does appear to be the one in most of the Bibles today) parallels to what Hebrew Scriptures that are in the Bible, and / or in the DSS Texts that equate to the Hebrew Scriptures. I have the full DSS Isaiah, and some snippets of other readings. It is not surprising that the Bible Revelation has parallels to historical texts, not to mention historical things (here and there) used to convey things into its Christian Settings;

Prophets had a habit of interpreting past events under the form of a prophecy, after the manner of apocalyptic writers. Such a procedure belongs to Jewish apocalyptic but not to Christian, until we advance well into the 2nd century;

I have a list of the parallels / echoes / correlations of those texts to the verses in the Bible Revelation, and will be posting those in a new thread called: “Revelation: The Sources…”, perhaps next month Lord permitting. Right now I’ve been working on the thread “Revelation: Last 3 Chapters”;

Truly it has been said, it is shown that without the knowledge of The Pseudepigrapha it would be impossible to understand The Seer.


Are you sure the PDF is legitimate? The book makes no mention of a Revelation DDS, although it addresses 4 or 5 books found in the immediate area. While The Seer used a number of sources, I have no idea if DSS Revelation was one of them, but it could be speculated. But the order and parallels are uncanny. I have noticed over the years that it has made people hold the Bible Revelation highly suspect, and they feel it is a plagiaristic rip off of the other Revelation. Others, like myself, perfer to have it together with The Bible Revelation. But DSS Revelation is much smoother and better ordered (sequenced).

I think you mean “DSS”, not “DDS” – you must have the doctor in mind. I compiled the PDF file and DID make note of the names of this Revelation in the Titles section in the rear matter of the file, and even in the front matter (Page c). And my name and email address is in the rear matter as well. Apparently, you did not “at least” scan over this file. Want to try again?

http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/Revelation_Q_Columns.pdf

Also, I should note to you that this “Revelation” is not an entity on its own. It appears WITHIN other texts. Thus, I collated (with some help) some text along with Szkeley’s MSS and inserted pieces that were not in Szkeley’s English translation.

I do not know what you mean “it addresses 4 or 5 books”. Are you talking about the referenced comments from Wilson Tucker? I’m not sure which “Book Of Revelation” is what Barbara Thiering was referring to, but William Harwood addresses the Bible Revelation I think – but even where the Revelation in the English Bibles are concerned, there are 3 archetypes of those (TR, CT, and MT), and at times, they are odds with each other.


Have you considered the parallels in the different books could be attributed to the fact the different authors were both aware of OT prophets and leveraged that language, rather than the DDS is a source document for the book of Revelation?
I am aware of this, and The Seer seemed to do the same thing. Used events of the past and present to convey the present and future, and of course, like any good soldier of God, quoted from the respective religious texts – some now Biblical, some not. Hopefully, he was not seeing candidates running for nominees for president here in the U.S. – I don’t think any sources and known objects (imagery) could convey those! :spin:


I understand about the time issue, no problem. Thank you, I am in good shape now and rolling.

Blessings.

PaulT
Mar 30th 2008, 05:45 AM
Apparently, you never even looked at the file – at least a person that not influenced by aberrations that would have, and would not make such a comment. “Style” is not an issue. The Seer had his own unique style unlike any other. To date, as far as we know, there are no writings or compilations by The Seer.

Blessings.

Friend, I must completely be missing your point, you did write this, “Originally Posted by Clifton As for “DSS Revelation” (it is called by several names. DSS = Dead Sea Scrolls), I provided a link in post #44, on page 3 of this thread to you so you could access Revelation Q.” Didn’t you? Were you not suggesting the book of Revelation in the NT was sourced from the DSS Revelation, a term apparently you’ve developed?



The texts have been contributed to the Jewish Sect called the Essenes, but some historians, theologians, scholars, critics, etc. do not agree. Perhaps they are meat-eaters since the Essenes were vegetarians? At least the modern ones are. Texts from Qumran usually are identified as Qumran, Essene, or DSS.
Blessings.
I’m aware of the sect that hide the DDS, that wasn’t the question, who wrote the PDF you linked to?



I reviewed some pages (they will only allow you to view but so many). It appeared to me that the author(s) were simply referencing some Revelation (and it does appear to be the one in most of the Bibles today) parallels to what Hebrew Scriptures that are in the Bible, and / or in the DSS Texts that equate to the Hebrew Scriptures. I have the full DSS Isaiah, and some snippets of other readings. It is not surprising that the Bible Revelation has parallels to historical texts, not to mention historical things (here and there) used to convey things into its Christian Settings;

Prophets had a habit of interpreting past events under the form of a prophecy, after the manner of apocalyptic writers. Such a procedure belongs to Jewish apocalyptic but not to Christian, until we advance well into the 2nd century;

I have a list of the parallels / echoes / correlations of those texts to the verses in the Bible Revelation, and will be posting those in a new thread called: “Revelation: The Sources…”, perhaps next month Lord permitting. Right now I’ve been working on the thread “Revelation: Last 3 Chapters”;

Truly it has been said, it is shown that without the knowledge of The Pseudepigrapha it would be impossible to understand The Seer.
Blessings.

I guess the above answer means you didn’t see any “DDS” or “DSS” Revelation in the scrolls. BTW, and FWIW just because something has been said it doesn’t mean it is accurate. Your premise that without an additional book the revelation given to John could not have been understood by his audience doesn’t hold water.







While The Seer used a number of sources, I have no idea if DSS Revelation was one of them, but it could be speculated. But the order and parallels are uncanny. I have noticed over the years that it has made people hold the Bible Revelation highly suspect, and they feel it is a plagiaristic rip off of the other Revelation. Others, like myself, perfer to have it together with The Bible Revelation. But DSS Revelation is much smoother and better ordered (sequenced).

I think you mean “DSS”, not “DDS” – you must have the doctor in mind. I compiled the PDF file and DID make note of the names of this Revelation in the Titles section in the rear matter of the file, and even in the front matter (Page c). And my name and email address is in the rear matter as well. Apparently, you did not “at least” scan over this file. Want to try again?

http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/Revelation_Q_Columns.pdf (http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/Revelation_Q_Columns.pdf)

Also, I should note to you that this “Revelation” is not an entity on its own. It appears WITHIN other texts. Thus, I collated (with some help) some text along with Szkeley’s MSS and inserted pieces that were not in Szkeley’s English translation.

I do not know what you mean “it addresses 4 or 5 books”. Are you talking about the referenced comments from Wilson Tucker? I’m not sure which “Book Of Revelation” is what Barbara Thiering was referring to, but William Harwood addresses the Bible Revelation I think – but even where the Revelation in the English Bibles are concerned, there are 3 archetypes of those (TR, CT, and MT), and at times, they are odds with each other.
Blessings.

What makes you think the author of the book of Revelation in the NT used any source other than the source who gave him the vision? The source I provided doesn’t address any “DSS” or “DDS” revelation it address other books written in apocalyptic language with other names. The point is these books are not a “Q” revelation.



I am aware of this, and The Seer seemed to do the same thing. Used events of the past and present to convey the present and future, and of course, like any good soldier of God, quoted from the respective religious texts – some now Biblical, some not. Hopefully, he was not seeing candidates running for nominees for president here in the U.S. – I don’t think any sources and known objects (imagery) could convey those!

Thank you, I am in good shape now and rolling.

Blessings.

Your point?

PaulT

Clifton
Mar 30th 2008, 04:09 PM
Thanks, but this doesn’t substantiate the accuracy of the claim. Again, just because the author uses similar language doesn’t mean the document was written during the same period the similar language was sourced from.
Your statement here makes no logical sense to what it replies to.


Well the whole book was a vision wasn’t it?
There is no indication in the texts as such. If that term would be used for the "whole" book, then it would have to be classified as a series of ‘visions’ (“an appearance divinely granted in an ecstasy or dream”).


There is plenty of question regarding the date of the book. What is your evidence that the book was complied in the 2nd Century?
Not at all, that has just come about from those accepting aberrancies and clinging on to them. The ‘date of the book’ expands over a periods of time, but this OP (Original Post) is not about that – if you’d like, start your thread if you want to discuss that – this OP is about the Greek of Revelation itself.

And I never stated that ‘the book was complied in the 2nd Century’, nonetheless, since you mention such a phrase, it can be said that that the texts are not recognized until the 2nd Century. As for the series of documents, in the whole, they do not appear to be older than the mid 90’s A.D.; however, there are marginal glosses in additions to interpolations, though they have no bearing on our discussions (yet?).


How is it your position is the fact, yet mine is based on “selective” reasoning. A nice guy would validate his claim.
But oh, if you knew what I was holding back, you would know what a nice guy I am! :D All my so-called “claims” can be validated. I have posted you the recommendation of learning Koine Greek, whether by book, internet, or a public ‘out setting’. I should also mention that I recommend you seriously think about a change of social circles and stepping back from those that have reworked the Greek (and even English in your case) into texts that do not translate BACK into the Greek hence where they came from, but when translating back into Greek, is a whole different Greek – words, and in your case, even contexts;

Try learning Koine Greek first – when one does that which is caught up into aberrations and adulterations of it, they will leave those behind, or, worst, drop the Koine Greek and instead cling on the aberrations (due to excuses like family, friends, social settings, etc.)


It doesn’t bode well when you make a claim without evidence as in the case above or like when you provide a PDF that can’t be traced and independent sources don’t confirm the PDF’s claim as in the case of DSS Revelation. Clairvoyant?
I covered this last night. Apparently you did not look at the front and rear matters of the PDF file. If you did not care for my update, you can fall back Szekley’s English Translation via one of the links I supplied in the rear matter of the file in the Appendix (Page 13). Here is one of them:

http://www.global.org/Pub/DSS_Revelation.asp

HOWEVER, bear in mind that it will not contain places that occurs in other texts and MSS, which I collated into Revelation Q – (that is why the Preface says what it says.) – Here’s an example that you will not see in the text at the above link, which is within square brackets “[]” – I’ll color it in red for this post:
(cp. Jap 5:1)‡ And then I saw in the right
hand of him that sat on the throne,
[whose face was hidden,] a book
written within and on the back,
Sealed with seven seals.
Now, to find the difference here on the above referenced web page, please use your Internet browser’s “Find” feature (generally accessible from the Edit Menu, or by using the 2 keys Ctrl-F) to locate the phrase “And then I saw in the right hand”, and you will not see the phrase “whose face was hidden”. Plus, generally, Revelation Q simply updates words (e.g. “honour” to “honor”, and so on). It is not to be associated with that which is translated from the Original Ethiopic by Faheem Judah-el, Axum Publication 2006, though many of the same words and phrases are used, but generally speaking, Faheem’s terminologies differ, and inserts his (or their) comments in parenthesis, example:
There was a sea of glass like crystal: (Daru-Salaam/The Crystal city)

The problem is you haven’t provided anything beyond the conjecture, what is the basis that the Laodiceans rejected it?
The real problem here is that you are a victim of aberrations and influences that betray you – that’s why you keep altering statements here and there, that is the case when one is being taken advantage of by the spirits of error. And here, you have done it again. John’s Apocalypse was not included as reading material by the Laodiceans – The Council of Laodicea omitted it from their books to be read. What is “conjecture” (by Wordsworth, mentioned in the Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary Introduction for Revelation, thus is a person recognized in their time of doing the Commentary), is their reasoning(s) for this: that a feeling of shame, on account of the rebukes of Laodicea in Revelation.


Sorry Friend, I can include them because I answered your silly conclusion, if you will trace back through these posts to my original response when your brought up AMG’s surprise you will discovery the folly of your assumption.
There is no folly or assumption on my end and the "surprise" is certainly not limited to AMG, not by a long shot – you (among with a skimpy few of the population) are the one that chose to cling on to aberrations and alterations of texts, into a manner, that other verses would have to be rewritten as well (IOW, disjointed a snippet out of context(s)), and cannot be translated back into the Koine Greek hence where it came, not even synonymously. Thus, considering the meanings of the English in accordance to the meaning of the Koine Greek, and the integral of the context, you cannot “truthfully” and “honestly” use those Bibles, nor any of the 60+ Bibles I have, not the mention, and especially, any of the Greek New Testaments I have, and that is the bottom line here, and remains as such.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 31st 2008, 04:30 PM
This is my 666th Post in the Public Forums here, and it is a reply to you, PaulT, so this is a sign of the times! :D



I’m sure you are comfortable and I’m sure I didn’t misrepresent you, you just didn’t include the simple fact that that they said,
"The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century.
To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text. The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work. Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, our goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries."
http://www.esv.org/translation/preface
You are again assuming something that they flat out contradict, they state unequivocally, “To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text.” They didn’t qualify it stating they only checked those passages that contained archaic English words. Methinks you are reading something into the translators words not intended.


All of this above are contradictions in themselves. They are notorious for deceptions, especially for their so-called “textual footnotes” which are a bit crafty - same for NIV, and no doubt some others that use the CT archetype, which brings me to mention another thing: William Tyndale and KJV (among others in the 2nd Millennium, like YLT, etc.) used the TR archetype, which is a family of the Byzantine / MT archetype, which is a far cry from the CT archetype, so their claim here is muddy – they should have took it back no further than RV (1885); of course, with them, I guess it really makes no difference anyway;

Plus, either they did not even mention “which CT they used”, or they claim they used both of the modern ones - though not specifying which one the UBS is referring to – (there are 4 of them) – if they were using Nestles Edition 27 which has a more extensive apparatus than UBS (and still yet does not cite other differences are text-critically and translationally significant), thus, what is the purpose of using any UBS editions? That makes no sense. Maybe they are referring to a Computer Bible Module? That would surely be the better way to go, if it were as they say: “To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text”, but then why the need a 1971 English Bible? Not to see where words and phrases like “groovy”, “dig it”, and “far out” might go, since they already existed in 1971. Also which “original Greek” are they referring to “here” and “there” as opposed to others in the readings for verses? They admit to not using some "preferred" readings of the editor(s), and of course, the alternative reading might very well be the better reading, but then you have this conflict of this "Bible against that Bible";

Quite alright for people like me, because I have the textual variants and readings of all the three archetypes, including those NOT cited by Nestles-Aland, but what about the average person out there? CT is an Alexandrian texttype. It is primarily represented throughout most of the New Testament by the agreement of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, with the support of other related manuscripts, such as 75 and L019. Thus, those CT editions such as the NA27 and UBS4 reflect a predominantly Alexandrian textbase, with readings established on a variant-by-variant basis by means of subjectively applied internal criteria coupled with selectively determined external principles (the “reasoned” method of modern eclecticism). This kind of modern eclectic process of subjective textual determination on a pervariant basis results in a textual patchwork that within numerous verses finds no support among any extant document, even over relatively short segments of scripture. This problematic situation does not occur among the manuscript consensus that forms the basis of the Byzantine Textform, so that is one reason it is my “personal preference”;

NEVERTHELESS, these days a person can quote from any archetype (or Bibles based on that archetype) to me since I got the Greek New Testaments and the variants; But if you choose a CT-based Bible, please keep in mind, that you may be quoting something to another person that will not understand or get confused - please be sure to provide the text of the Bible, so they might better understand. Also, as for the Bible’s version of Revelation, keep in mind that it has more variants than the other substantiated Books.

Having said that, well, an analytical specialist in Koine Greek gives a fair overall review of the ESV (but with disappointment about their crafty so-called textual footnotes), so whatever you do, do not click on the following link since it is something you might want to avoid (I’m just putting it here for others that might be interested in reading the review :D ):
Review Of The ESV by Gary F. Zeolla (http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/esv/part_one.htm)

However, if you are interested in variants and alternative readings in English, at the same web site, you can access them via the following links:

Every translatable textual variant in the Book of the Revelation in the New Testament between CT, MT, and TR archetypes:
http://www.dtl.org/alt/variants/revelation.htm

The Most Significant Readings have the archetype Abbreviations in bold, i.e. CT-, MT-, TR-.

Alternate Byzantine Majority Text readings for Hebrews to Revelation.
http://www.dtl.org/alt/byzantine/alternate_readings/heb-rev.htm

(the first reading, before the 2 forward slashes, “//”, is, or was, the “preferred” reading in 2004 or before). Well, DTL notes that they are up to date to the year 2004. As for me on my end, I am up to date to the year 2005.

For the other books in the Bible other than Revelation, you can access the readings as well from the links that are on the above referenced web page links. Perhaps it may be of some help in discussions and using your Bible(s), be it whichever one(s) you use. For example, like it was for us in the other thread in this forum for Revelation 9:16:
The army of 200 million.

100 million like the majority of MSS say, or 200 million like majority of the English Bibles say?

(ACV) And the number of the armies of the horsemen was ten thousands of ten thousands. I heard the number of them.

(ALT) And the number of the armies of the horse [fig., of the cavalry] [was] ten thousand [times] ten thousand [i.e. 100 million], and I heard the number of them.

(Complete Apostles' Bible) Now the number of the troops of the horsemen was a hundred million; I heard the number of them.

(EMTV) Same as above.

(ESV) The number of mounted troops was twice ten thousand times ten thousand; I heard their number.

:hmm: could make it 150 million to compromise :spin:

Now, who shall get my 777th Public Post to seal this sign of the times...:saint:

Blessings.

Clifton
Apr 3rd 2008, 03:29 PM
Thanks, just to be sure, is it his premise that Revelation, as it now appears in the NT was a compilation of texts and not a recording of a series of visions the author was given by God?

Huh? :hmm: AH. Fascinating. The answer to that is “yes” AND “no.” Let’s take examples of the long passed history and today’s present time;

For anyone having dreams / visions of things not seen by people normally of their time, which they can only express those things in known words and with sources they recognize and know in their own time period. This was the manner of Jewish apocalyptic writers, additionally, interpreting past events under the form of a prophecy, or prophecies;

As I said in a previous reply to you here, Prophets had a habit of interpreting past events under the form of a prophecy, after the manner of apocalyptic writers. Such a procedure belongs to Jewish apocalyptic but not to Christian, until we advance well into the 2nd century;

So a series of documents (especially Jewish-Christian) over the many past ages, and the then current, were used (repeated, or virtually repeated) at times to convey the dreams / visions. And of course, as to glorious things, previous texts were used to convey things seen.

If it were something happening today, a follower of God would certainly quote from scriptures and other religious texts, and use secular events and sources as well. Say, like either the bombings of Pearl Harbor, Japan, Bosnia, World Wars, civil wars, Vietnam, and/or so on, to “convey” any future foreseeing, and, due to changing times, a seer may see some things and events not recognizable for their own time period. There it would be what a seer could best put into words of their current time, a compilation of current knowledgeable texts for a series of dreams / visions, whether they are dreams / visions in a short period of time, or over an extended period of times.

Example of the Summary for Chapter 12 (http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/jap/japc_s.pdf)

Chapter 12
A RETROSPECT.
(12. This chapter is retrospective. Its object is to give the reader insight into the past in order to prepare him for the crowning evil the climax of Satan's power upon earth. But this crowning evil is not really a sign of his growing power, but the closing stage of a war in heaven, which had already terminated in the vindication of God's sovereignty, and the hurling down of Satan to earth. Hence, however, Satan and his minions, the Roman and heathen powers, may rage, but it is but the last struggle of a beaten foe, whose malignity is all the greater, since he knows that his time is short. The vision goes back before the birth of Christ, and tells with mythological coloring how Satan sought to destroy Christ {sic: cp. Matthew 2:13-23}, and, after His ascension, the Church itself. In setting forth his theme The Seer has borrowed the main part of this chapter from Jewish sources, which had in turn been derived from international sources, and has adapted them -- though not wholly -- to their new and Christian setting. The closing verses, 14-16, were written before 70 A.D., and cannot be interpreted in detail of the crises of 95 A.D., when our author wrote. See RHC Vol. I, 299, 331 sq. For a summary of the chapter, see RHC Vol. I, 298 sq.)

Again, without knowledge of The Pseudepigrapha it would be impossible to understand The Seer, (John the Presbyter), and the Bible version of Revelation.

Blessings.

Clifton
Apr 5th 2008, 10:59 PM
Hey, I can understand why you don’t understand his commentary, but it isn’t as though Gill was cryptic, methinks the issue is you don’t want to deal with the fact he contradicts what it is you suggest is the only rendering of the text. Context isn’t the issue, clearly Gill states the stuff of the visions would begin immediately culminating in the distant future. I’m not plucking “snippets” just pointing out what the man wrote and how it is inconsistent with what you claim is the only rendering of the text.
I see no “fact” here. And I don’t have to “deal” with anything here. I refer to the scriptures and the context of them. The apparatus of Gill is good, but he did not have the numerous resources of evidences that we have today. Revelation 1:2 is one example. He only had 2 sources of the alternate reading. Today, that is like 2000 to 2500 MSS. Gill made some errors that he probably would not have made had he the resources available we have today – please don’t forget, he is of the 18th Century


It seems based on reading some of the input of others, I have proven my point. Nobody here has "proved" your point, and the intact scriptures disproves your point anyway, and that is what makes the difference ;) Besides, you have failed to address several issues and posts, and have taken what little you may have peeked at, out of context.:P

Blessings.

Clifton
Apr 5th 2008, 11:30 PM
Which one of the numerous authors over the several centuries and audiences? Irenaeus talk to those whom spoke to The Seer face to face, and they didn’t “understand” - but we could make a fair guess they did a lot of “counting”, as has been occurring since the 2nd Century. Irenaeus wrote out several sentences attempting to define it, as did others. We “know,” “believe” or “think” “who” the text was “based on” for an “ongoing and continuous representation of progression of an evil persona.”
Surely you jest, the original author and his original audience. Perhaps the issue stems from the disparity in our viewpoints. My belief is that book, (Revelation as it appears in the NT) was written to a specific audience by a specific author with a unique message, you seem to think the book is merely a compilation of earlier writings that were pieced together providing any believer general guiding principles. Depending on ones viewpoint, the conclusions derived from the book will be fundamentally different.

I see only the letters to the 7 assemblies as unique, and possibly some other snippets. I pointed out in a previous post that The Seer used sources over a long period of time to convey what he claimed to have seen - see the post here within sub-titled "Seers and Sources", Post 172 here.


Again, you jest, “the sense” not only implies but directly states what “it is” regarding the subject being addressed. I don’t understand your point regarding 1:19, he claims from, “hence” which would be now, the things would begin to be fulfilled, which again is in keeping with his view of Rev 1:1

The Greek conveys that the things referred to in Revelation 1:1 were already in the state of progression and had been occurring, is occurring, and will continue to be occurring. Thus, there are delays in some things between other things, that is why your “concept of without delay” has no common or logical sense with the context, and that is why you cannot answer to the question of which Greek word you are using for Revelation 1:1. If it was for only a ‘specific’ audience (don’t get your Hollywood term for this), then there is no need for the rest of it to have it, right?

Come over here and give CARM a break, catch up with your posts on THIS Board - and move around HERE to other topics and threads – I just checked your profile, and besides ONE message in INTRODUCTIONS, you have only posted in this ONE thread here: 57 Posts here in this one thread and only 1 in another, and that was Introductions. Get out and round about here and check out the lovely scenery. :P

Blessings.

Clifton
Apr 6th 2008, 12:11 AM
No problem, I’ve been getting swamped with work and don’t really have the time to devote to your responses.

Thank You.:)

Blessings.

Clifton
Apr 6th 2008, 12:57 AM
Also, I never made any such statement that “the Bible wasn’t complied until after 70AD” nor did I even mention the term 70AD. I mentioned 1970 in re of the aberrancies that have grown at a higher rate than before that. I said that would be impossible since the Bible Revelation was not totally compiled


(of recent and long aged documents and sources) until beyond Vespasian’s time. The Seer "transfers himself in thought to the time of Vespasian, interpreting past events under the form of a prophecy, after the manner of apocalyptic writers" (Swete). Such a procedure belongs to Jewish apocalyptic but not to Christian, until we advance well into the 2nd century.


In the above quote You seemed to be suggesting the book of Revelation in the NT was written post 70AD.

My question,
Gee then why isn’t 70AD mentioned as a past event in any of the books of the NT? The book of Revelation couldn’t have been writing pre 70AD because the Bible wasn’t complied until after 70AD? That is a sound argument? Friend, you don't know what governs my thinking.

Exactly, despite the fact that I showed you altered my words, you have now turned around and shown you did so, and did it again. From what I have seen, aberrations govern your thinking, that I do know, and is all I need to know.

I said, “That would be impossible since the Bible Revelation was not totally compiled”

Bible Revelation = two words.

You said, “The book of Revelation couldn’t have been writing pre 70AD because the Bible wasn’t complied until after 70AD?”

Bible = one word, opposed to my two words.

Compiled; not written. As I have already expressed several times, the writings themselves consist of periods of extended times, especially the quotes from previous ages.

There appears to be missing text here:

goes to the idea that an event as momentous as the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem would not go unnoticed by a Christian of Jewish origins who was writing to folks who were being persecuted by 2nd Temple Jews, Rev 2:9

I’m just not up to par with the aberrations taking advantage of you. I do not know about anyone or any texts stating it went unnoticed. Perhaps, you say this because only Josephus and the heathens wrote about it? They did not exactly make much reference to the Temple in the NT after the Gospels – Acts did, and it appeared in a little in an epistle or two. It did not mean much to Christians, and apparently, the lack of documents on the Jewish was embarrassment or shame, and that we just have not discovered them yet, or it was mentioned in some cryptic or symbolic manner in documents we do have, or is missing text expunged from it - even the Bible Revelation has holes in it - contains lacunae and missing text (which should be about at 19:5b if I remember correctly).

I am emphasized and underlined some things in this quote:

When did Vespasian reign? I think his reign ended in 79AD, which would mean you statement, “That would be impossible since the Bible Revelation was not totally compiled (of recent and long aged documents and sources) until beyond Vespasian’s time” occurred after 70AD.

Vespasian’s time was 69-79. As I said, totally compiled (of recent and long aged documents and sources), which would be beyond Vespasian’s time, just like it is that the documents within are beyond of other times – like in a previous example, Chapter 12 was used, of Mary and the Baby Jesus and them fleeing to Egypt. Is this why you keep bringing up a ‘date’ issue, because you have stopped somewhere in the events and did not recognize the events afterwards? I hope not, because at that rate, I could do that for the first few verses of chapter 12, and say that the Bible Revelation was compiled no later than about 4 or 3 B.C.

Blessings.

Clifton
Apr 6th 2008, 01:41 AM
Sorry, I think your claim that so many got it wrong is illogical.

PaulT

Well, as I said, out if thousands and thousands I have only known about a half dozen of you that got it wrong, so what is that, about 0.000666 percent of you? And you call that illogical???:spin:

Blessings.

Clifton
Apr 6th 2008, 01:49 AM
I didn't say the Muratorian Canon came from Marcion I said it was developed in response to him.

PaulT

Gee... so if it were not Marcion there would be no canon? Where did you get this info? A comic book?:D Seriously, your statement is a fantasy and inconceivable. It was not until a half a century later that the Muratorian Canon list come about, which was going to happen one way or another.;)

Blessings.

Clifton
Apr 6th 2008, 02:05 AM
Sure I have, I've pointed out that according to you the guy's who tranlated the KJV, the NKJV, the ESV and a bunch of others simply missed the Greek grammar, that my friend is an illogical position.

PaulT

See Post# 141 on page 10 and Post # 130 on page 9 in this thread which you have yet to reply to. As already pointed out, though there is nothing illogical in reality you cannot include those translations for your theme - it is you that is missing the mark, and changing the contexts of those Bibles. You just look at a different section of a dictionary than they looked at, and there is no logic with your view since the context refers to events that had already been in progress. Perhaps you might take times of seclusions, and read the Bible contextually, chapter to chapter?;)

BTW, ESV is coming out with it's Scofield Reference Edition, this year I believe. You know, Cyprus I. Scofield that was a innovator of John Nelson Darby? I can tell you pretty much of what is going to be said for the preface of Revelation.:D

Blessings.

Clifton
Apr 7th 2008, 02:50 AM
Sure it’s false, then why do all 18 versions render the passage different than from what you claim is the only possibility based on the grammar.


You are right, Greek isn’t theory, however my point is the way you handle the Greek is a theory, one not supported by those 18 major translations we identified.

You keep responding as if I haven’t already written this or that, yet, it is ironic, that when a person so seized by aberrations, that they must continue to ignore things already said to them in English, and respond in a manner as if those posts do not even exist. Besides, we have records that many MSS were manipulated in the early centuries A.D.

Again, see previous Post #179 on this page, 1st paragraph of my reply – a person cannot “honestly” and “truthfully” use those translations in the manner you convey, simply by misaligning the corresponding definitions.

If you desire to understand what the Greek “Present Tense” means for Greek, I refer you to:

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#TENSE

then please see the part that says:

The kind of action (aktionsart) of a Greek verb will generally fall into one of three categories:
1) Continuous (or 'Progressive') kind of action.

And also the part:

Present Tense
The present tense usually denotes continuous kind of action (http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#AKTIONSART). It shows 'action in progress' or 'a state of persistence.' When used in the indicative mood (http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#INDICATIVE), the present tense denotes action taking place or going on in the present time.

There is no logic with your view since the context refers to events that were, and had been, and continue in progress, and were to continue. It requires the destruction and rewriting of just more than verse 1 in Revelation Chapter 1.


LOL, what words of yours did I pull out of context? The point is no scholar references Zod’s work. Again, I said:
from what I have witnessed in the networks and the internet

I had already underlined and bolded it, and yet, you turned around again and pulled my statement out of context again. And besides, why do scholars need to reference Greek Dictionaries “any more” than they would Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, etc. in the U.S.A.? You simply are not making any sense. Because you hold to a view that a tiny amount holds, perhaps that is why you have not seen any references, or perhaps quickly jerked your head around?:D


You anecdotal history doesn’t mean much in this discussion because you appear to have a world-view that stipulates the author of the book of Revelation in the NT was not inspired by God, you seem to think the book is nothing more than cut-n-paste compilation of prior writings. Again here as well, you are either not reading the CONTEXT of my messages, or have simply perverted and twisted around what I said.


That’s the problem I have and haven’t found his work used by any Scholars, however on the other hand I’ve found where he himself admits his stuff is not for those who know Greek. You say it a little differently this time than before – before you said, even Zodhiates states that his stuff not to ‘learn Greek’, and as I responded, neither would an English Dictionary (even an analytical one) could be used in first "learning English". Like AMG, Vines, Thayers, etc., they are REFERENCING TOOLS. The lack of logic and common sense in your posts on these vBulletin boards is staggering. Also, I would like to see at least the CONTEXT of this "Zodhiates" statement, because I am inclined to believe that you have a reworked version of the context (if any such a context exists at all). As for you not having found any “Scholars” referencing AMG/Zodhiates, that does not mean they do not exist as the rest of us have seen over the years. Again, I note as in a previous post, perhaps you should try a change of social circles and influentials – ones that people read things contextually. ;)


So what we have here is you under the tutelage of a guy who claims his stuff isn’t for the Greek student claiming scholars schooled for years in the discipline of Greek translation didn’t get it right, I’d say that is an illogical position. Nope, that is not “whom” I learned Greek from, at least the elementary and primary basics, and I have already pointed that out. Again: Referencing Tools. And besides, WDNT is an analytical work as well, more so than say, Vines or Thayers, and I have seen WDNT being referenced since the early DOS days of the BBS Network Conferences;

Virtually anyone having disdain for Zodhiates is those whom hold on to aberrancies and change the underlying the languages of the scriptures anyway, and those types do the same for others like Thayers.:P

And I have already addressed several times that translations don’t get things right here and there, but the issue here is not the case so much. The point is, you are not getting it right, and your change of definitions lacks logical and common sense to the context of Revelation Chapter 1 and the grammar of the context of it.


This is already been covered. It takes a different Greek word and editing out parts of Revelation 1:1, and dismissing sufficient MSS of alternative readings. So I ask again, further noting this is a primary concordance, which word holds up your view?
How does your “point of view” match up with the following, by using the stems? Which one, or ones of the following are the Greek matching your point of view?
ταχυτητα (η): speed; gear* (* = added to Modern Greek: relative speed)
σινομα: soon.
σύντομα: soon.
σε λιγη ωρα: (clock/time wise) soon.
κοντός, κοντοί, κοντή, κοντές, κοντό, κοντά: shortly.
γρήγορα: quickly.
χωρίs καθυστέρηση: without delay.
αντωνυμία: pronto (actually, “pronto” is a shorter word for “without delay”).
παραχρημα: immediately, forthwith, instantly.
ευθεως: anon, as soon as, forthwith, immediately, shortly, straightwayI also did provide the links to the lexicons of the words constructed from the Greek ταχ stem, and yet, you did not respond. Perhaps you have begun to realize, that your view requires different words and contexts?

My view holds up just fine with the words used and the translations offered that don’t support or include your view.
IOW, you cannot directly answer the question, because your view requires different words (i.e. χωρίs καθυστέρηση, αντωνυμία, etc.) which makes the rest of the context, of things that were already occurring, sound illogical (IOW, a destruction and new construction of Revelation Chapter 1). Yet, when not reworking any of the texts, and keeping the context intact, the “view” for the rest of most of us is sensible and logical. Also, "the translations offered" do include the view of the Greek, and your "out of context" so-called view fails miserably, face-down. It is a matter of defined words. Surely, you do not think it is from Outer Space and another Planet, and left up to one's whim to determine the words, do you?:hmm:


Right, I believe this had to do with your rendering of the Old English of the words, “must shortly” you were claiming a meaning that went out of date some 500 years prior to the translation. Nope, you have completely altered what I said. The categories of the definition when properly aligning the definitions of the languages are fine when applied to the context. You alluded to things as if all those things were “yet” to happen and they would happen pronto, when the context shows the “things” were already occurring – there is no logic in that in that. The things happen in a shortness, quickness, etc. of time.


Why, if we were addressing and English translation would I give a hoot about the Greek Grammar? Evidently you’ve gotten lost in the shuffle. Many others, what translation committee recognizes what you claim the grammar will only allow for? Many of them. And evidently you are the one that got lost in the shuffle, because I had clearly expressed, it does not manner to me what any English Version may say, The Greek is the Greek, and I use the Greek New Testaments.:wave:


The definition wasn’t used the way you claim it was used after the 12th Century, go back and reread your source. Your argument and AMG’s amazement doesn’t hold water, which btw, it would seem is why Gill rendered his commentary in keeping with my position. The definitions (plural) referred to have been, and are still in use since before the 12th Century – you just used to the wrong categories for the context. And as to the “amazement”, that "amazement" is upheld by the majority of folks. As I said, out of thousands I only know of about half a dozen of you folks that hold an aberrant view of the context, though I am sure there are more of you – after all, aberrant views are popular.:rolleyes:

Blessings.
:sleeping:

Clifton
Apr 8th 2008, 04:03 PM
I'm glad I'm providing free entertainment, but it would appear you position that suggests 18 major translations simply got it wrong is the real slide-splitter.

And yet, you still amuse me. YOUR adjective “major” is comical to say the least. As I have pointed out several times and made note in earlier posts, I withdrew that topic in checking the categories in the 3 Volume Dictionary, and you have responded to that. See Post #179 to guide you via links to two of those older posts. Here again, as it has been many times, you seek to change any context before you.

Well, even for English, we all often have to refresh our memories, so I guess I will have to provide some elementary taught English Grammar here for memory refreshment. Perhaps then, you can see, how illogical your reworked version of Revelation 1 is. I had to edited and manipulate some parts due to the copyright page (which came out in 1979, before the bang of computer usage), but I am still using the same verbs and adverbs, which happens to fit in very nicely for the discussion here. This is amazing.

Suppose a person asked you to tell them about the things you do in a day. You would need to use verbs to name the actions. You would also use words that describe the actions.


An adverb is a word that describes an action. An adverb may tell how, when, where, or how often an action is done.

* How:

Harry worked quickly.
The citizens walked slowly.

In the first sentence quickly describes the action verb worked.
In the second sentence slowly describes the action verb walked.
Quickly and slowly are adverbs. They tell how the action is done.

* When:

Dennis Gates arrived early.
His relatives came later.

In the first sentence early describes the action verb arrived.
In the second sentence later describes the action verb came.
Early and later are adverbs. They tell when the action is done.

* Where:

Their children played outdoors.
Local adults walked nearby.

In the first sentence outdoors describes the action verb played.
In the second sentence nearby describes walked.
Outdoors and nearby are adverbs and tell where the action is done.

* How Often:

The audience shouted frequently.
The audience only laughed once.

In the first sentence frequently describes shouted.
In the second sentence once describes laughed.
Frequently and once tell how often the action is done.

Based on “Macmillan English”, Tina Thoburn, Rita Schlatterbeck, Ann Terry; Series E. © 1979 Macmillian Publishing Co., Inc., pp.160-161 {Same verbs and adverbs were used}.

Shall I provide a higher level of education as well, as in from “Harper’s English Grammar”? Nah, not yet, let us digest this slowly, just in case. ;)

:idea: Seriously, me really thinks you really out to toss your “logical fallacies” book into the trash, and pray for forgiveness and mercy for having it, then perhaps, you can progress to becoming logical and use common sense. Progression can be tiresome at times, but overall, is such a wonderful journey. ;)

Blessings!

Clifton
Apr 10th 2008, 09:58 PM
Friend, I must completely be missing your point, you did write this, “Originally Posted by Clifton As for “DSS Revelation” (it is called by several names. DSS = Dead Sea Scrolls), I provided a link in post #44, on page 3 of this thread to you so you could access Revelation Q.” Didn’t you?

Yep, and I see from your replies you did not bother with the context, and yet, that post was a reply to your post.
Let’s restore that context here, with some emphasis and underlining this time:


Also, there is DSS Revelation (though it be called by various) names which is a very encouraging text, and very much of it underlies the Bible Revelation. If it to be over 100 years before the Bible Revelation (c. 200 – 69 B.C.), and would appear that people had hope and encouragement long before that. With some help, I have done a more up to date of English of that, called Revelation Q (http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/Revelation_Q_Columns.pdf). Someone else filled in some holes and I incorporated some texts of the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls), and put verse parallel (close, or closely related) to the Bible Revelation preceding the text. The sources are listed in the front matter and read matter.


Were you not suggesting the book of Revelation in the NT was sourced from the DSS Revelation, a term apparently you’ve developed?

That term was developed before I was even born. I am not “suggesting” here – but some hold to that belief. For some more of that earlier post to you:


By the time that The Seer had addressed the seven assemblies, people were aware of things. Of course, the more voices of encouragement, the better. The Bible Revelation is an encouragement of all times – The Seer used resources of the past and current times tragedies and incorporating them into his texts;

VI. Greek and Hebrew Sources, and their Dates, (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-%20VI.htm)

VII. Books of the O.T., of the Pseudepigrapha, and of the N.T. used by our author. (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-VII.htm)

One was that of the Neronic persecutions, though, (and not to downplay the horrors of it), that was more localized. Later became a more widespread persecution, of Domitian, and even worst beyond that. This has continued in areas throughout history, and continues even today, like China.

So, the “help” you refer to is in the end – since most people do not live past 125 years of age, that is generally the most anyone is going to have to wait.

For a text, such as DSS Revelation, which conveys a text of pre-Christian era, what do you think IF you have scanned over the whole thing in the Revelation Q PDF file?


The texts have been contributed to the Jewish Sect called the Essenes, but some historians, theologians, scholars, critics, etc. do not agree. Perhaps they are meat-eaters since the Essenes were vegetarians? At least the modern ones are. Texts from Qumran usually are identified as Qumran, Essene, or DSS.
Blessings.


I’m aware of the sect that hide the DDS, that wasn’t the question, who wrote the PDF you linked to?
DDS? Who “wrote” the PDF, or who “compiled (published to PDF file)”? If you read the context post addressed to you back on Post #44, you would see “I” published the file to PDF (from within WordPerfect). As to “who” wrote it, the reply to that has already been given in the very quote you quoted of my words (see above). Nonetheless, the text was contributed mostly to the Essenes in the last Century. Since the late 1990’s, when the remaining of the DSS were unveiled for public consumption for the 1st time, that thought has changed with some folks.

Be back later with rest of reply to Post 169.:wave:

sabertooth
Apr 11th 2008, 07:15 AM
Hi Clifton, I don't think this has anything to do with this discussion, but I'll ask anyway,

I'm wondering, where do you stand on certain positions of eschatology? In other words, if you had to classify yourself, what would you be? For example:

1) Amillennialist
2) Premillennialist
3) Pretribulationism
4) Postribulationism
etc...

good day to you
S

Clifton
Apr 11th 2008, 10:43 PM
Hi Clifton, I don't think this has anything to do with this discussion, but I'll ask anyway,

I'm wondering, where do you stand on certain positions of eschatology? In other words, if you had to classify yourself, what would you be? For example:

1) Amillennialist
2) Premillennialist
3) Pretribulationism
4) Postribulationism
etc...

good day to you
S



Hi sabertooth,

I believe tribulations will continue, and probably grow until there will be a more wide-spread one (how wide-spread, I’m not sure, but it will be a “great tribulation”). I do not advocate a “pre”, “mid”, or “post” tribulation position, other than it’s “one or the other” – I take the “readiest” position: be ready to go at any moment, in some way or another, out of this life.

On the “millennialism” position, I am more of a “centenarian”, which means I suspect that the “1000” number represents “hundreds of years”, or “a long span of time.” I believe that period has yet to ever happen. However, from what I have learned, as to “who” will be the people on the current physical planet, will be only the Martyrs, and possibly any surviving nations out of the great tribulation. So most saints that died in the past and present are not in that reigning kingdom. After the judgment, this current physical planet will be rolled up (like a scroll, or "sent away") and there will be a better one, and a bigger one as well - a bigger planet to hold the all the saints, which will surely be necessary to hold the New City, according to the diametric of it given in scripture, which this current physical Planet cannot withstand. The remaining saints of history will be on that New Planet, or "Earth", as well.

On the last 3 chapters of the Book Of Revelation, I have started a thread called:
Revelation: Last 3 Chapters,
You can click on the above link which will load up in your current Browser’s Window/Tab. If wish to post there, feel free to post any kind of input relative to the last 3 chapters of the Book Of Revelation, and any agreements and / or disagreements to what is so far posted. ;)

Blessings.

sabertooth
Apr 13th 2008, 05:25 AM
Hi Clifton, I tried to clink on the link you provided, the problem is that it says that I don't have permission.

quiet dove
Apr 13th 2008, 05:50 PM
sabertooth, I think that is because it is in the Contro and you do not yet have access to that forum. Hang in there and keep posting, it takes 40 post and 30 days.

Clifton
Apr 14th 2008, 08:57 PM
sabertooth, I think that is because it is in the Contro and you do not yet have access to that forum. Hang in there and keep posting, it takes 40 post and 30 days.

What is the sub-title description under one's avatar (on the left top of the user post) when they reach this status?

I notice the "REP part" for "sabertooth's" post said REP OFF, and that was what happened with me once my status here was upgraded, so I had assume (apparently, incorrectly) that they could access the Controversial Issues forum. If I remember correctly, even once a user's status is upgraded, they have to manually "join" the forum[?], via the USER CP.

Blessings.

Clifton
Apr 14th 2008, 09:12 PM
Hi Clifton, I tried to clink on the link you provided, the problem is that it says that I don't have permission.

Sorry about that - I had assumed you were at a stage on this board that you could access that link. When you do reach the upgraded status (as Quiet Dove has pointed out), I THINK you will have to manually join that forum:
You'd Click on the USER CP, then under the Miscellaneous Section, Click On Group Membership link to join the group, or groups.

I guess you may have time constraints on how often and how much you can post?

In the meantime, I will ask the same question: where do you stand on certain positions of eschatology? So, if you had to classify yourself, which ones would you be? For example:

1) Amillennialist
2) Premillennialist
3) Other mill
4) Pretribulationism
5) Postribulationism
6) Other trib
etc...;)

And also, do you believe the "1000" in Revelation 20 to be a "literal" 1000, or symbolic for an expanded period of time?

Blessings.

Clifton
Apr 19th 2008, 01:52 AM
I reviewed some pages (they will only allow you to view but so many). It appeared to me that the author(s) were simply referencing some Revelation (and it does appear to be the one in most of the Bibles today) parallels to what Hebrew Scriptures that are in the Bible, and / or in the DSS Texts that equate to the Hebrew Scriptures. I have the full DSS Isaiah, and some snippets of other readings. It is not surprising that the Bible Revelation has parallels to historical texts, not to mention historical things (here and there) used to convey things into its Christian Settings;

Prophets had a habit of interpreting past events under the form of a prophecy, after the manner of apocalyptic writers. Such a procedure belongs to Jewish apocalyptic but not to Christian, until we advance well into the 2nd century;

I have a list of the parallels / echoes / correlations of those texts to the verses in the Bible Revelation, and will be posting those in a new thread called: “Revelation: The Sources…”, perhaps next month Lord permitting. Right now I’ve been working on the thread
“Revelation: Last 3 Chapters”;



I guess the above answer means you didn’t see any “DDS” or “DSS” Revelation in the scrolls. BTW, and FWIW just because something has been said it doesn’t mean it is accurate.
Me thinks you need to run to the store and buy some more straws. Are you insinuating that Christians seen “the scrolls” of Biblical texts they read today? :rofl: Ironic coming from someone that has admirations for CT-Based Bibles. There are 105 whole verses in the NA GNT (Greek New Testament) edition that from the NA apparatus alone can be demonstrated to have zero support from any known evidence as regards the precise form in which they are currently printed in that edition. That’s one of the reasons I mentioned to you about the “patchwork” in the CT GNTs. Though oddly enough, for The Book Of Revelation, the Greek of the CT archetype is closer to the MT archetype as opposed to the TR archetype (which for the other book, is just the opposite).

Again, DSS Revelation, is not a text (scroll-wise) on its own. It is part of a text within other texts – call’em what you wish – Essene, DSS, Qumram, Aramaic or whatever. I provided to you a link to Szekley’s Translation that was already provided in the “Revelation Q” PDF and WordPerfect Files.


Truly it has been said, it is shown that without the knowledge of The Pseudepigrapha it would be impossible to understand The Seer.
Blessings.

Your premise that without an additional book the revelation given to John could not have been understood by his audience doesn’t hold water.
Those are not my words; those are your adulteration of my words. Given the grammar of the verbs in The Book of Revelation in the Bible, the “audience” was them of the past, before them, those after them, us for the present, and those of the futures. As for those of the past, The Pseudepigrapha, as well as the Tanak and other Jewish literature, was pretty well known. You act as if all of the text The Book of Revelation in the Bible was all “brand new” text, which contradicts one of your very own previous posts stating otherwise.


What makes you think the author of the book of Revelation in the NT used any source other than the source who gave him the vision? The source I provided doesn’t address any “DSS” or “DDS” revelation it address other books written in apocalyptic language with other names. The point is these books are not a “Q” revelation.
The only “source” you provided was a limited amount of pages of a book, which as I pointed out, was not what you made it out to be – I can only assume you do not know what else is in the book and what names they use to refer to older texts. I have expressed it more than once, the old Revelation is called by different names – it is not an entity on its own but is a section in other texts.



I am aware of this, and The Seer seemed to do the same thing. Used events of the past and present to convey the present and future, and of course, like any good soldier of God, quoted from the respective religious texts – some now Biblical, some not. Hopefully, he was not seeing candidates running for nominees for president here in the U.S. – I don’t think any sources and known objects (imagery) could convey those!

Thank you, I am in good shape now and rolling.

Blessings.


Your point?
What are you alluding to in the quote?

Blessings.