Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
12 gauge with slugs? Using dogs? {:>O
Yes and no. While the originals did not have puncuation, the earliest Greek manuscripts did contain some slight forms of puncuation: paragraph breaks, gaps between words and occasional periods. (The reason for this is that the Greek language did not have punctuation until the second or third century)
I will come back to your agreement that the original Greek NT texts had no punctuation.
And here is what I posted in #1997 about those original Greek NT texts:
This is an empty argument. The Greek NT text has no punctuation. John did not write Greek with punctuation. Punctuation is added by translators, whether translating to modern Greek or translating to English. The main Greek NT texts are the Textus Receptus, Elzevir's, Nestle-Ashland, Westcott-Hort, and variants. Here below is Rev 20:4 as it appears in these various Greek texts.
Stephan's 1550 Textus Receptus:
kai eidon qronouV kai ekaqisan ep autouV kai krima edoqh autoiV kai taV yucaV twn pepelekismenwn dia thn marturian ihsou kai dia ton logon tou qeou kai oitineV ou prosekunhsan tw qhriw oute thn eikona autou kai ouk elabon to caragma epi to metwpon aut
Elzevir 1624:
kai eidon yronouv kai ekayisan ep autouv kai krima edoyh autoiv kai tav qucav twn pepelekismenwn dia thn marturian ihsou kai dia ton logon tou yeou kai oitinev ou prosekunhsan tw yhriw oute th eikoni autou kai ouk elabon to caragma epi to metwpon autwn kai epi thn ceira autwn kai ezhsan kai ebasileusan meta tou cristou ta cilia eth
Nestle Ashland 26th/27th:
KAI EIDON QRONOUS KAI EKAQISAN EP AUTOUS KAI KRIMA EDOQH AUTOIS KAI TAS YUXAS TWN PEPELEKISMENWN DIA THN MARTURIAN IHSOU KAI DIA TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI OITINES OU PROSEKUNHSAN TO QHRION OUDE THN EIKONA AUTOU KAI OUK ELABON TO XARAGMA EPI TO METWPON KAI EPI THN XEIRA AUTWN KAI EZHSAN KAI EBASILEUSAN META TOU XRISTOU XILIA ETH
Westcott-Hort:
KAI EIDON QRONOUS KAI EKAQISAN EP AUTOUS KAI KRIMA EDOQH AUTOIS KAI TAS YUXAS TWN PEPELEKISMENWN DIA THN MARTURIAN IHSOU KAI DIA TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI OITINES OU PROSEKUNHSAN TO QHRION OUDE THN EIKONA AUTOU KAI OUK ELABON TO XARAGMA EPI TO METWPON KAI EPI THN XEIRA AUTWN KAI EZHSAN KAI EBASILEUSAN META TOU XRISTOU XILIA ETH
Westcott-Hort: 1881 with Nestle-Ashland 26th/27th variants:
kai eidon qronous kai ekaqisan ep autous kai krima edoqh autois kai tas yucas twn pepelekismenwn dia thn marturian ihsou kai dia ton logon tou qeou kai oitines ou prosekunhsan to qhrion oude thn eikona autou kai ouk elabon to caragma epi to metwpon kai epi thn ceira autwn kai ezhsan kai ebasileusan meta tou cristou cilia eth
And if you care to see Stephan's 1550 TR simily of how the original Greek script may have appeared as penned by John (or whomever may have transcribed what John dictated) then look here.
I'm sure anyone with unimpaired reading can see there is no punctuation in these Greek NT texts.
But now Jean Chauvin in post #2004 quotes Starwind post #1997: ”I'm sure anyone with unimpaired reading can see there is no punctuation in these Greek NT texts.” and further objects Your statement would be correct if it read, “I’m sure anyone with unimpaired reading can see there is no punctuation in the editions of the Greek NT texts I cited. [my underline].
Sincerely Jean, this is another reading error on your part. In my post #1997, my phrase "I'm sure anyone with unimpaired reading can see there is no punctuation in these Greek NT texts." immediately followed those actual Greek NT texts (5 of them) wherein I explicitly cited and showed the editions and text of Rev 20:4 without any punctuation. To which your mistaken objection was I failed to make clear the editions of the Greek NT texts I cited. The texts were cited and reproduced 1 line above what you quoted.
You recommend (in your post #2004) that I down load the "Nestle-Aland 26th/27th edition: Unix format with diacritics and punctuation or the Nestle- Aland 26th/27th edition: plain Unix format".
Been there, done that, even posted Rev 20:4 from the Nestle, above (again). Yet you claim later "Actually, the specific one I consulted in my [Jean Chauvin] post is the Nestle" but you didn't seem to recognize it so I wonder if you even read that.
Now here, Jean, in your post #1958, you state (quoting you exactly):
In the Greek text I consult, there are only commas. There is no period or colon.
The text reads word for word: “And I saw thrones, (comma) and they sat on them, (comma) and judgment was given to them, (comma) and the souls of the [ones] having been beheaded…”
Now, we know you didn't consult the original Greek NT text version of the Nestle Ashland 26th/27th because it has no punctuation and you previously agreed that none of the original Greek NT texts have any punctuation (but you did cite 3 commas). So, the Nestle Ashland 26th/27th you seem to be consulting is the punctuated version? The one you recommend I download? Right? Here then is Rev 20:4 from the Nestle Ashland 26th/27th punctuated version of the Greek NT text:
KAI\ EI)=DON QRO/NOUS, KAI\ E)KA/QISAN E)P' AU)TOU/S, KAI\ KRI/MA E)DO/QH AU)TOI=S, KAI\ TA\S YUXA\S TW=N PEPELEKISME/NWN DIA\ TH\N MARTURI/AN I)HSOU= KAI\ DIA\ TO\N LO/GON TOU= QEOU=, KAI\ OI(/TINES OU) PROSEKU/NHSAN TO\ QHRI/ON OU)DE\ TH\N EI)KO/NA AU)TOU= KAI\ OU)K E)/LABON TO\ XA/RAGMA E)PI\ TO\ ME/TWPON KAI\ E)PI\ TH\N XEI=RA AU)TW=N: KAI\ E)/ZHSAN KAI\ E)BASI/LEUSAN META\ TOU= XRISTOU= XI/LIA E)/TH.
Now, you said 3 commas, but I count 4, plus a colon and period (which you said were not there). So, there is a 4th comma after QEOU=, (of God,) a colon before : KAI\ E)/ZHSAN (: and they lived), and a period after = XI/LIA E)/TH. (thousand years.) So I plugged this into the YLT Rev 20:4 text and made the same changes you did (I think), but unlike you, I have included the full text and all the punctuation in the following hypothetical translation:
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who [OI(/TINES] did not bow before the beast nor his image and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand: and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years.
And now diagramming it out:
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them,
and the souls of
those beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and
those who did not bow before the beast nor his image and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand:
and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years.
I'm not going to bother with a recitation on the definition and use of "those" and "those who".
The beheaded and those who didn't bow or take the mark, were still souls.
Obviously, none of that pivots on "I saw" being inserted or left out of '[I saw] souls'. And of course it wouldn't. Jean you make a point (again) that "I saw" is an insertion by many translators (YLT excepted) as if this somehow matters: Again, from your post #2004:
Starwind post #1997: ”Interestingly, how did your consulted text end the sentence without a period”
Since the “and I saw” which precedes “the souls” is ~not~ actually in the Greek, then it is assumed into the wording. And since the “and I saw” which precedes “the souls” is assumed into the wording, then the “and I saw” which precedes “the souls” is taken/ assumed directly from the “And I saw” which precedes “thrones” and begins vs 4. If the “and I saw” which precedes “the souls” is taken/assumed directly from the beginning of vs 4, then it must be a continuation of those who John saw sitting on the thrones.
You have yet to even demonstrate why you understand those on the thrones are distinct form those John subsequently describes. You are merely asserting it based on the punctuation marks in the KJV, LOL! That’s a ~great~ argument! LOL!
Why do you think an inserted "I saw" is germane to my question of 'how did your consulted text end the sentence without a period'
You then come back to this point of "I saw" being inserted in many translations:
First of all, notice there is (correctly so), no “I saw”. It reads simply, “and the souls”. Every other translation “assumes” or inserts the “I saw” into that wording. The “I saw” comes from the beginning of verse 4. Therfore, it is a clarification of who John sees. Thus, the I saw, while not necessary, makes for a smoother read. The YLT assumes that we can understand that “the souls of those…” comes under what John sees.
The pivotal issue is not that John reiterate that he "saw" them (as opposed to "heard" them, which distinction would be important) but that they were souls. Souls that had been killed in either or both ways; 1) 5th seal martyrs of Rev 6:9-11 or 2) killed by the beast (Rev 13:14-17). In all cases - they're souls. And you yourself conceded in post 1927 that John sees them. So this '[I saw] being inserted in some translations' issue is another red herring.
Jean Chauvin argues in post #2004: For some unknown reason, you continue to rely on the KJV alone as if this 400 year old translation were the end all to a good argument.
I didn't choose the KJV. You did. Your assertion in post #1927:
Look at the distinction that John himself makes:
A) and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded...
and
B) and which had not worshipped the beast...
In group A) John tells us that he saw "souls" that were "beheaded". John doesn't tell us that these were "physically dead" in those direct words, but we can safely presume (according to premillennilism's "literal hermeneutic") that these people are physically dead.
In group B) John tells us that he sees people who didn't worship the beast. There is no similar indication that these people are dead.
[...snip...]
The KJV also makes a distinction between these two groups.
You described Group B) as "and which had not worshipped the beast". So, "and which" is in the KJV text you cited, and you further explicitly cite the KJV as supporting your claim. I merely followed suit, to accommodate your argument.
I didn't rely only on the KJV, I showed the same sentence analysis in 5 translations, but most recently did the detailed analysis of ", and which" for the KJV. Every translation can likewise be diagrammed, but the result is the same. The beheaded souls (for reasons given) are all souls, dead, and live and reign with Christ.
Then you take issue with the KJV translators for their choice of "which" rather than "who" for the pronoun in Rev 20:4; again in your post #2004:
Starwind: The KJV translators argue that souls are inanimate and not human and chose "which" rather than "who".”
Inanimate? Not Human? Look at the Greek word used here for "soul": "Psuche".
Now define it. This word does not mean "dead people". This word is actually an affirmative word! It means "life"! It is used in the NT far more frequently as the "breath of life" of living breathing physically alive people!
Take it up with the KJV translators. The NKJV, NASB, NIV, YLT use they, those, and, who - but the result is the same in all cases - dead souls physically live again. Get over it.
Again, the actual Rev 20:4 text of several translations (plus the hypothetical from above):
NIV: I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
NASB: Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw [cf Rev 6:9] the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not [ cf Rev 13:12,15] worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the [cf Rev 13:16] mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
KJV: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
NKJV: 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[1] thousand years.
YLT: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years;
Note I have added the Nestle Hypothetical Translation based on the Nestle Ashland punctuated text, from above:
NHT: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who [OI(/TINES] did not bow before the beast nor his image and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand: and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years.
And again the grammatical consistency which all translators have used with Rev 20:4 as it pertains to the souls John saw, their status as physically dead, and their subsequent coming to life:
souls introduction not worship reject mark live 1000 years NIV . And souls of those beheaded . They and . They NASB . And souls of those beheaded , and those , and ; and they KJV : and souls of them beheaded , and which , neither ; and they NKJV . Then souls of those beheaded , who , and . And they YLT , and souls of those beheaded , and who , and , and they NHT , and souls of those beheaded , and those who : and they So, all translations introduce the beheaded souls, then refer back to them with reasons for their beheading, (not worshipping and not taking the mark) and conclude with the result that they all live and reign with Christ 1000 years. All translations reference the souls, none (save the NASB and the Hypothetical ) distinguish the souls as separate from not worshipping the beast or rejecting his mark, and all translations conclude the souls lived and reigned 1000 years with Christ. In all translations, no souls are excluded from coming to life and reigning with Christ 1000 years. All translations end with "they" which at least always refers to "souls of beheaded" which is entirely composed of previously living but killed people (either from Rev 6:9-11 or Rev 13:14-17), however "they" could refer as well to those on thrones. But this does not change the fact that the beheaded were physically killed and live (implicitly again - a physical resurrection).
This consistency is driven not by punctuation, but by the original Greek NT texts which establish the context of saints being killed during the tribulation and coming to life in the millennium. The original Greek NT texts are consistent. The translators and scholars (hundreds of them over centuries) were faithfully true to that consistency and produced English translations which reflect (using words and punctuation) that inspired consistency.
So in all translations:
- John saw those on thrones (a group)
- souls, physically dead people (another group)
- The souls were beheaded (and also martyred in the NASB) but all were physically killed.
- All physically killed souls then lived and reigned with Christ 1000 years.
- No where are the beheaded souls excluded from coming to life and reigning with Christ 1000 years.
- No souls or beast not-worshippers and mark-rejecters, are excluded from having been killed and then living and reigning with Christ 1000 years
So, Jean Chauvin's repeated but unsubstantiated assertion that John tells us that he sees people who didn't worship the beast. There is no similar indication that these people are dead remains scripturally incorrect, even in the hypothetical using the Nestle Ashland punctuated text. Not only were the people who did not worship the beast physically killed, but they also lived again and reigned with Christ 1000 years. They were physically (not spiritually) resurrected.
You assert in post #1958: "Unless you can prove that the reference to the “rest of the dead” is a reference to “physically dead” people, I would suggest that this is another of your presumptions."
Starwind post #1955: ”The coming to life 'again' of 'the rest of the dead' (physically dead) is likewise a physical (not a spiritual resurrection), though being spiritually dead, 'the rest of the dead' presumably experience the second death in the lake of fire.”
Jean Chauvin post #1958: Unless you can prove that the reference to the “rest of the dead” is a reference to “physically dead” people, I would suggest that this is another of your presumptions.
I provided that answer in post #1997, but I will repeat it again:
'the rest of the dead' introduced in Rev 20:5 (those over whom the second death does have power), are then further described in Rev 20:13 as including those given up by the sea, which clearly is a reference to graves or physical burial at sea. They were physically alive and then physically died and are now standing ('lived' as per Rev 20:5) at the white throne, so in the context they lived 'again'.
And you toss out another red herring about my sidebar on Matt 6:9 being translated as "Our Father Which/Who/[?] is in heaven:
Kinda makes your sidebar on Matt 6:9 a non issue.
Matt 6:9 was a nonissue to begin with. I said the sidebar was a "sidebar". I found it interesting. You could ignore it, but you seem to have set it up as a straw man to knock down. This wasn't germane to millennialism.
And I can not overlook the implied attack: Why do you have to lie?
So, it would appear the ad hominen attacks now start - the last refuge of the bankrupt argument. Is this how you'll make your case? Take care what treasure you are laying up in Heaven. Just state your disagreements plainly, with material proof if you have it.
Summing up again:
In the first resurrection of Rev 20:4-6, the souls John saw who live and reign with Christ are physically resurrected (as explained in this post and post #1997), not spiritually regenerated.
The coming to life 'again' of 'the rest of the dead' (physically dead) is likewise physical (note the sea gave up the dead in Rev 20:13), not a spiritual resurrection, though being spiritually dead, 'the rest of the dead' presumably experience the second death in the lake of fire.
As explained by gracebeliever in post #1972, and nobdysfool in post #1999, regeneration is not resurrection, and spiritual regeneration is not physical resurrection. Rev 20 is the physical resurrection of both those who were previously spiritually regenerated to eternal life (Rev 20:4, 5b, 6), and the physical resurrection of those unregenerate 'dead' who will be condemned to the lake of fire (Rev 20:5a, 11-15).
The first resurrection of Rev 20:4-6 precedes the white throne judgment and 2nd death of 'the rest of dead' by a real 1000 year millennium. There is no requirement to construe John 5:28,29 as mandating the same simultaneous hour of resurrection for both groups (those who have done 'good' and 'evil'), and would further complicate the plain language of Rev 20:11-15 on judgment and condemnation of 'the rest of the dead' by their works alone. This has been explained in post #854, post #861, post #865 and post #951.
What Rev 20 literally tells us is that the first resurrection is bodily, not spiritual (as explained in this post and post #1734 and post #1778 and post #1809). It is a resurrection of souls who learned the gospel during the tribulation (as explained in post #1347, post #1382 and post #1391) and rejected a real graven mark of the beast (as explained in post #1068). The 1000 year millennium is real (not merely metaphorically 'vast' as was explained in post #1133 and post #1155), is God's plan, not Satan's (as explained in post #1228), and singular (as was explained in post #1402 and post #1810). None of which has happened yet and Satan is not yet bound and won't be until that future 1000 years.
I’m sorry star, but this cute little argument you have prepared for my benefit just went down the drain. All that time…WASTED! I’m sorry!
(sigh) Lastly, this isn't about you. This is about offering to any others with ears to hear an explanation of the fallacies in your position. That the Millennium is real. The Rapture and Tribulation are real. The mark and beheadings are real. Satan is real and unbound, and the saints need to be prepared to have faith and persevere, stand firm and wait for Jesus. Not simply bet on a spiritualized metaphorical ending to the age that will be trouble free and painless. So no, I don't do these explanations for your benefit. I do them for the benefit of others and to testify to God's word - as written.
Duh.
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. - Ephesians 1:4-6
Looks to me as if God's objective reason is according to the good pleasure of His will, and in order to obtain the praise of the glory of His grace.
(Just because you don't think that God doing something solely to bring praise to Himself isn't proper doesn't mean that He is wrong when He does. By His grace, for His glory.)
Mark 1:14-15 Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."
These verses state the "gospel of the kingdom," which is the gospel addressed to Israel. This isn't the gospel we are saved by today. Christ said the kingdom is "at hand." He didn't say it was here, or that it would even arrive the next day or week. The Greek word interpreted as "at hand" is defined as "to make near," "approach," "be at hand," and other similar terms to describe something that is going to happen or about to appear. "At hand" is now approximately 2000 years. And it's going to be at least 7 more years to get here.
Paul said "for now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed" in Ro. 13:11, which is a similar concept to "at hand." The "now" in Romans is the same time statement as the "time is fulfilled" in Mark 1:14. It means everything's in place, or completed and ready for the next event or step. As previously stated, the people Christ was addressing knew the prophetic calendar of events, they just didn't believe Christ was the Messiah and thus the fulfiller of prophecy.
Good luck hunting those varmits. ;-)
That command was to individuals of the nation of Israel..not the nation as a whole..
C.I. Scofield Strikes Back!!!!
So, since Woody thinks the Kingdom of God has already come, and then cites Matt. 12:28-30, it seems that the Kingdom of God consists of casting out demons. That's how he interprets that, anyway. The Kingdom of God = casting out demons...says so in Matt.12:28. Do I need to point out the obvious, that Jesus was referring to one aspect of the Kingdom of God, that of releasing people from bondage. But that is not the whole Kingdom of God, is it? So wouldn't it be innaccurate to cite this verse to prove the Kingdom of God has already come?
Context, people, context!
Argue this.
(asked of the_doc in post 848: and post 875 and post 894 and post 898 and post 965 and post 971 and now most recently in post 1084
the_doc: The beheading idea in Revelation 20:4 is not necessarily limiting us to physically dead Christians anyway. It definitely includes those who have died physically, certainly including literal martyrs, but the verse may very well be just borrowing a martyrdom scenario for beautiful metaphorical purposes in the vision--including metaphorical purposes involving Christians who are still physically alive!
So, what are those metaphorical purposes and what is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of believers in Christ testifying to Him, rejecting Satan, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan?
But a couple of quick comments:
"Sincerely Jean, this is another reading error on your part. In my post #1997, my phrase "I'm sure anyone with unimpaired reading can see there is no punctuation in these Greek NT texts." immediately followed those actual Greek NT texts"
No error, just a slight semantic change to ensure that the lurkers out there knew you meant the 5 Greek texts you quoted. The phrase "...in 'these' Greek texts..." to some people, especially in the light of your assertion that ~NO~ Greek text had any punctuation of any kind (you said, "The Greek NT text has no punctuation"), could possibly be constured as a reference to all Greek texts "in general".
I'm not insinuating you selected your wording intentionally such that you intended to mislead some people. I just felt it needed to be clarified.
"Actually, the specific one I consulted in my [Jean Chauvin] post is the Nestle" but you didn't seem to recognize it so I wonder if you even read that."
Sure I did. But the specific Greek text I consulted is contained in a hard copy book in front of my nose as we speak, not on-line.
My point about the "Greek text I cited" was to denote that I understand that there are differences in various Greek texts. When I originally made a comment about the punctuation. I simply noted that in the copy of the Greek text I had in front of my eyes, there were all commas (I just checked, there still are only commas.) I made this notation so as not to imply that ~ALL~ Greek texts contain punctuation or the same punctuation that the copy I have does. Apparently, you did not catch that. I'm not suprised.
"Now, we know you didn't consult the original Greek NT text version of the Nestle Ashland 26th/27th because it has no punctuation and you previously agreed that none of the original Greek NT texts have any punctuation (but you did cite 3 commas)."
I never said I did consult the original Greek NT text version of the Nestle Ashland 26th/27th. I only made reference to the fact that "the Greek text I consulted" had commas throughout. (I just looked again, and they’re still there.)
"So, the Nestle Ashland 26th/27th you seem to be consulting is the punctuated version? The one you recommend I download? Right? "
No. And I never said I was consulting a Nestle Ashland 26th 27th. (you have continually shown a tendency to assert that I made some statement. These, like your biblical premillennial theories, are simply incorrect inferrences. I mean really, you have made many statements that "I said..." when I said no such thing. If I can't trust you to accurately interpret me, then how can I trust that you accurately intepret the Bible?)
"Now, you said 3 commas,…"
I never “said” “3 commas”. (See? Here you go again!) I simply pointed out that the Greek NT I consult(ed) had all comma’s "in the wording in question".
The wording in question is that which I copied from the English literal of the book I consulted: "And I saw thrones, (comma) and they sat on them, (comma) and judgment was given to them, (comma) and the souls of the [ones] having been beheaded…"
"but I count 4, plus a colon and period (which you said were not there)."
What the period and semi-colon that I said was not there was specifically in reference to your statement in your post #1955 which reads:
"Note further, that in three translations (NIV, NASB, NKJV) John's sight of those on thrones is contained in a complete sentence ended by a period and separated from his subsequent descriptions.""In the KJV a full colon separates the sight of those on thrones from his sight of souls."
It was to this statement that I responded in my post #1958:
"In the Greek text I consult, there are only commas. There is no period or colon."
Notice again, that I only made reference to the Greek text “I consult”, not all Greek texts, nor original Greek texts. Only the text I consulted.
Furthermore, if you link back to my #1958, you will notice that my reference to “no period or colon” is specifically to your statement which I quoted above.
For clarity, again I will post the English literal from the Greek text I consulted which pertains to your allegation of a distinction based on the punctuation marks of the KJV regarding the sight of those on thrones and the sight of souls: ” And I saw thrones, (comma) and they sat on them, (comma) and judgment was given to them, (comma) and the souls of the [ones] having been beheaded…”
But all this is really academic. For it was ~you~ who was trying to make some big statement regarding the distinction of “those on the thrones” and the “souls” based solely on the punctuation marks in the KJV. I never said I consulted the original of anything. I only made note that the Greek text limited to the one “I consulted” contained commas throughout. (In fact the entire verse is one sentence) ( Just in case something changed, I checked again. The commas are still there.)
I suspect you are only attempting to divert others from the weakness of your argument regarding the distinction of those on thrones from the souls based on the KJV punctuation marks.
I say this because you are attempting to make a stink about the fact that I didn’t quote from the original Greek texts. Well, I never claimed to. What is your point?
"So I plugged this into the YLT Rev 20:4 text and made the same changes you did (I think), but unlike you, I have included the full text and all the punctuation in the following hypothetical translation:"
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who [OI(/TINES] did not bow before the beast nor his image and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand: and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years."
I've already noted that the YLT incorrectly read "and the souls of those who have been beheaded". Therefore, your resulting diagram here is invalid. I've already shown you this in the Greek.
And I note that your argument still is predicated on this erroneous wording.
But, I'll play.
We could also diagram ~your~ hypothetical translation this way:
Here ~your~ translation supports my point perfectly! Thank you!
I'll even diagram it a different way:
And I saw [thrones...]And I saw [the souls of those beheaded...]
And I saw [those who did not worship the beast...]
Perfect sense!
"The beheaded and those who didn't bow or take the mark, were still souls. "
It "works" in your adjusted YLT translation only because of the YLT's erroneous wording of "...the souls of those who were beheaded..."
But, as I've just shown with your own translation, concluding that the those who did not worship the beast were some of the souls John saw is not the ~only~ necessary conclusion!
But in light of the fact that the Greek does ~not~ read:
“and the souls of those beheaded…and those who did not worship…”…
…but more accurately would read:
“and the souls of the ones beheaded…and those who did not worship…”
…we can clearly see that your “case” simply has vanished.
"Jean you make a point (again) that "I saw" is an insertion by many translators (YLT excepted) as if this somehow matters"
A notation simply to denote accuracy in translation. However, it is interesting to note that your assertion of a distinction of "the sight of those on thrones from his sight of souls." is based on the insertion of “I saw” by the translators. I was simply illustrating that your assertion loses any luster –if it had any at all- when we notice that the “I saw” of the “souls” is not really in the Greek.
In typical fashion, your argument regarding this distinction is based on an erroneous premise, just like your argument that all those John sees are dead is based on your assertion…
…(which you can’t seem to back up without mistranslating the Greek –and even then it supports my argument)…
…that [those who did not worship the beast…] are a sub-group of the “souls” John sees.
"Why do you think an inserted "I saw" is germane to my question of 'how did your consulted text end the sentence without a period'"
I really had no idea what you were getting at, so I took my best shot.
"The pivotal issue is not that John reiterate that he "saw" them (as opposed to "heard" them, which distinction would be important) but that they were souls. Souls that had been killed in either or both ways; 1) 5th seal martyrs of Rev 6:9-11 or 2) killed by the beast (Rev 13:14-17)."
Here’s our Rev 13 citation again. Help a brother out, please. Could you show me specifically where it says in Rev 13 that those who did not worship the beast were killed? I’ve read this several times and still have yet to see a reference to the actual killing of persons who did not worship the beast. I’ve asked you repeatedly to show me this. You have yet do so.
"Jean Chauvin argues in post #2004: For some unknown reason, you continue to rely on the KJV alone as if this 400 year old translation were the end all to a good argument."
This comment has more to do with your weak assertion that the punctuation marks of the KJV (which you originally brought up) in some way necessarily implies that there is a distinction between “those on the thrones” and the “souls”. Note the use of the word “continue” in the wording of your quote of me. My comment about the wording regarding the KJV being a 400 year old translation is to point out that you unwisely attempted to define what the KJV authors meant by “which” with the use of a contemporary dictionary. “Which”, as I have already pointed, in the King’s English of the 17th century ~MEANS~ “who”, “whosoever” or “whoever”.
"Then you take issue with the KJV translators for their choice of "which" rather than "who" for the pronoun in Rev 20:4; again in your post #2004:"
I'm not taking issue with the KJV translators at all! LOL. I'm simply recognizing that "which" means "who" or "whoever" in the Kings English! You simply failed to take that into account. ~THAT's~ what I was taking issue with –not the KJV translators!.
As evidence your continued failure to understand what “which” meant to the KJV translators, you reiterated in this last response:
"Starwind: The KJV translators argue that souls are inanimate and not human and chose "which" rather than "who"."
The KJV translators DID ~NOT~ argue that the souls are inanimate and not human. They DID ~NOT~ chose "which" rather than "who".
You silly ninny! The KJV tranlsators chose "which" because it ~means~ "who" (and whoever and whosoever)
"Again, the actual Rev 20:4 text of several translations (plus the hypothetical from above):"
Let’s look at this in a little different way.
In our English language, it is correct grammar to denote sub-groups in the same way.
In the translations you cite, this can be seen clearly in refernence as to the “why” of those “beheaded”. (I’m intentionally excluding the NIV as that, in general, simply slaughters Rev. 20)
NASB: “And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God”
- And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
- because of their testimony of Jesus
- and
- because of the word of God.
KJV: “and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God”
- and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded
- for the witness of Jesus
- and
- for the word of God.
NKJV: “Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God”
- Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
- for their witness to Jesus
- and
- for the word of God.
YLT: "and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God"
- and the souls of those who have been beheaded
- because of the testimony of Jesus
- and
- because of the word of God.
Note in absolutely every case, we have a consistent introduction of who the beheaded souls are:
NASB: because of…because of
KJV: for the…for the
NKJV: for...for
YLT: because of…because of
Now let’s look at how “the souls” are identified in these same translations:
NASB: And I saw the souls of those who
KJV: and I saw the souls of them that
NKJV: Then I saw the souls of those who
YLT: and the souls of those who
~IF~ those that worshipped the beast were part of the sub-group of souls, I’d expect to find “of” in front of the description of those who did not worship the beast.
Let’s take a look:
NASB: of those who…those who
KJV: of them that…which
NKJV: of those who…who
YLT: of those who…who
No, that’s not what we find. We don’t find the consistency of introduction that we’d expect and that we’ve already noted in the translations you cited.
In the NASB, it is accurately diagramed: "And I saw [the souls of those who had been beheaded…] and [those who had not worshiped the beast…]"
In the KJV, it is accurately diagramed: "and I saw [the souls of them that were beheaded…] and [which (whoever) had not worshipped the beast…]"
In the NKJV, it is accurately diagramed: "Then I saw [the souls of those who had been beheaded…] and [who had not worshiped the beast…]"
In the YLT, it is accurately diagramed: "and [the souls of those who have been beheaded…] and [who did not bow before the beast…]"
Again, it is consistent. It makes perfect sense. It is correct.
"And you toss out another red herring about my sidebar on Matt 6:9 being translated as "Our Father Which/Who/[?] is in heaven:"
Red herring? So, you bring up the sidebar to begin with as a point to note the interesting (to you) difference between the translations use of “which” vs “who” in Matt 6:9 all the while having in your mind, the incorrect definition of “which” according to the KJV translators. I then clarify the definition of “which” for you and then make a comment on your ‘sidebar’ (noting all along that your point was indeed a sidebar) and now I am charged with tossing out a “red herring”? You bring it up, I comment and it’s a “red herring”???
Pulllleeezzzzeee! (your getting a bit desperate).
"And I can not overlook the implied attack: Why do you have to lie?"
Attack? You claim that “What Rev 20 literally tells us is that the first resurrection is bodily”. Rev 20 “literally” tells us no such thing. You are lying to assert that.
I can look all day long in Rev 20 for the “literal” words “the first resurrection is bodily” and I will never find it. In fact, you never even find explicit words declaring something has risen from the dead.
Those John sees are literally said to have “lived” –not “lived again -not “bodily resurrected”. The “rest of the dead” are said to not “live” until the accomplishment of the 1000 years –not “live again” –not “resurrected from the body”.
Yet, you pompously declare that what “Rev 20 literally tells us is that the first resurrection is bodily. No, it most certainly does not.
Goodness, I don’t even declare that Rev 20 “literally” tells us that the first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection. It doesn’t “literally” tell us that.
Since it does ~not~ “literally” tell us that, you lie.
Even assuming (for the sake of a point) that you are correct regarding the first resurrection being bodily, it is simply not true that Rev 20 “literally” tells us that.
Your continuing assertion of that is what makes you a liar.
"As explained by gracebeliever in post #1972, and nobdysfool in post #1999, regeneration is not resurrection"
The Apostle John, who, as we all know, is the very same author of Revelation, makes a direct connects the word “resurrection” with the idea of spiritual “regeneration” in John 11:25,26. Since he can, I can. Since he did, gracebeliever and nobdysfool are simply desperately trying to twist what the Apostle John through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit has already literally told us.
Jean
Doc, you have repeatedly stated that premill was YOUR position before you changed to amill. You are probably the only one who can speak for yourself in this, but do you remember having an INTENT to deceive at that time? For someone to LIE there must be intent. For them to be wrong, they must simply assert something they don't know to be inaccurate. I do not believe premill is wrong. I do believe that amill is wrong.
Especially in Bible prophecy does later word from God further explain earlier word from God. Since the first prophecy was to Eve in Genesis 3, then subsequent prophecy expanded upon that.
In the John 5 passage there are 2 possible resurrections spoken of; and in the Rev 20 passage there are 2 certain resurrections spoken of. You were premill and you know that this is not some spurious, off-the-wall reading. The text surely does commend itself to this interpretation.
The literal hermeneutic is nothing more than a natural reading of the text. If we follow that rule elsewhere, we should follow it here.
I can agree with what you right here. "My own reasons" is a response I would sometimes give my own kids when they were small and I was in a hurry. That didn't preclude me from actually having other reasons...it's just that I wasn't going into them at that moment.
All of God's words are true, Jerry.
It's late. I can agree with what you WRITE here!
Sigh....time for bed.
as is typical of abusive personalities, we see
#1.) the supposed insult to God (which the_doc can only divine)
&
#2.) The witholding of love as a punishment. In this case, under the mistaken guise that we'd actually give a rats behind as to anything he thought.
unreal
Context, Mom, context. The Pharisees would not have been asking such a question if the scriptures did not make reference to it. Their question had more to do with trying to prove or disprove whether Jesus was the Messiah or not, and we can see from the vantage point of history that the Pharisees did not recognize that the Messiah would come first as the Suffering Servant. They expected the Conquering King because of the Roman occupation and their desire to be free of it. The Pharisees as a group tried to trip Jesus up on many occasions, so Jesus gave them truth in veiled form, answering yet not answering their questions.
Has it ever occurred to you that as Jesus' Messiahship had two aspects (Suffering Servant and Conquering King), so the Kingdom of God would have two aspects: the inward, and the outward? Obviously, here Jesus was referring to the inward, which is a pre-requisite for seeing the outward, especially for Israel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.