A new article of interest by Rodrigo Silva of Beast From the East Check it out.
This entry was posted
on Monday, June 1st, 2009 at 5:56 pm and is filed under Joels Trumpet.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
106 Responses to “Antichrist’s Rule: Global or Regional?”
You spoke on this as well in your Islam & The End Times Part II DVD (great series by the way!). It is a significant point that many fail to understand because of what we’ve been taught in Church for so many years, or see in “End Times” movies such as the Left Behind series. I think that many teachers fail to recognize the use of figures of speech such as synecdoche that the Bible often uses, but the more we begin to read Scripture in light of the whole of Scripture instead of reading all verses regarding Antichrist in a wooden literal sense, the more we begin to realize that the text is not speaking of a world-wide ruler over literally every soul on the planet. Kind of hard to be a world leader if you’re constantly fighting wars with other nations…
I agree Mitchell. I enjoy reading the analysis of those that take the time to analyze the original Greek, Hebrew, or Arabic. Rodrigo has done well here. The original language almost always provides additional insight into our understanding, since many words do not translate easily, or well. I have found that this ‘dictionary’ approach tends to be the most persuasive in discussions about almost any controversial topic.
I am of the belief that the Empire of the AC is not a NWO per se, it is not global, although will have a global influence; Revelation speaks of 1/3 of the trees, 1/3 of grass, etc. being destroyed, darkness upon 1/3 of the world; Muslim countries make up about 1/3 of the Earth
in Hebrew, the word “every” and “all” don’t always mean every single thing like in English, but are dependent on context; like when God told Noah I gave you every creature to eat, but before He differentiated between clean and unclean creatures or in Daniel when Alexander the Great, the he-goat conquers the whole world, clearly it was not the entire globe, and many similar examples in Scripture
Revelation is in Greek, but many think that even the NT was originally written in Hebrew and afterwards translated into Greek; either way, John had a Hebrew mindset
the biggest concentration of Christians and Jews I think is in America; America is Israel’s one and only partner, ally and friend, even with Obama, so I don’t see America as being destroyed like the America-Babylon camp thinks, but judged? absolutely!
God has been using America as the world’s police dog for a while now and I think after He judges us, He will continue to do so; the Scriptures say that the AC fights the mightiest of nations, IMO those are America and Europe, so clearly they are not part of AC’s kingdom and I don’t see them annihilated by AC; also the Bible says that God will assemble His army of holy ones who delight in His glory from far away lands, from the ends of the heavens, clearly an army of people, I only see America as qualifying after He judges us and we become more holy
Hitler wanted to conquer and rule the whole world, but it didn’t happen, he was stopped, his 3rd Reich had a global influence, but was NOT global; same with AC; and remember that the power of AC comes from 10 kings and in the end from Satan himself, so things IMO will happen almost over night
in the end, the Bible teaches that Jesus’ Kingdom will cover the entire Earth, clearly the context is global, not the same with AC’s kingdom
Once I really started paying attention to Biblical prophecy, I quit thinking the AC would reign globally.
For one, we read about Nebuchadnezzar who the Bible states ruled the world, all its people and animals; however, I doubt anyone in the Americas at the time ever heard of him.
Also, there are mentions of resistance to the AC from far off places.
ok so question.
I too agree that it is more regional than global. But i wonder then what effect the ac’s rule will have on the rest of the world?
and considering obama’s role and empathy’s with the muslims, what role does the west play? would we be part of chittum?
thoughts?
This brings up a question to my mind: all of the oil is there in the middle east. If they get themselves entangled in wars, etc… won’t that concern the US, Russia, China, and everyone else in the world that is so dependent on the black gold?
Unless we wean ourselves from oil completely, I don’t see how what happens in the Middle East won’t completely engross the whole world.
I understand this to mean that if the AC is going to have a fighting chance, he’d have to have control of all of these powerful nations.
I think it is clear that the AC’s empire will be regional rather than global although he will attempt to expand his power and influence throughout the entire Earth. Oil will certainly be a major issue for the entire world as the world deals with the consequences of an unified Islamic Caliphate. But all in all the Global AC paradigm never made sense to me because the nations of the world have too many competing interests for the leaders of all the nations to bow to the authority of one man.
What influence the regional, but still large and powerful, beast-empire will have on the rest of the world is intriguing, especially here since most of the readers of this blog, including me, live in this “rest”.
I think it can be extrapolated from the present influence of the countries that exist now which together will form the beast empire. Essentially the same, only more severe.
1. It will suck away the money and wealth of the rest through money and goods in exchange for expensive oil and natural gas.
2. It will neutralize some countries such as Russia and China through agreements about exchange of oil and natural gas. They may not actually become close friends, but support the beast-empire to some extent as long as it suits them. And each of them probably will not dislike it if the beast empire should turn against the western world. Something like “Well, if the West and the Islamic Empire wound and cripple each other in war, then that will leave us as sole superpower…” USA-disliking countries like Venezuela can also be counted among these.
3. It will promote the growth of Islam in the rest of the world, with money and economical pressure. For instance, if you do not help building mosques and Islam schools, and do not allow sharia in areas/towns/cities with a muslim majority, then you will get less or no oil, and we will no longer invest our money in your economy.
4. If this helps not enough, it will promote, support and organize terror strikes against anyone who opposes the Islamic empire and its growing influence. This will cause widespread fear, and stockholm-syndrome like pressure from the population to appease it by obedience.
I wonder what the politics of the large country and nuclear power India will be. Will they become like Russia and China? I doubt it. They will absolutely not like the rise of a new Islamic Empire, remembering the invasion of the old Islamic Empire in their country. But then, they still have a large muslim minority.
OK I’m getting more convinced of this regional approach to the global. But can anyone answer why our Bible translators from the last few centuries have got the Greek so completely wrong when it seems any part time student of the scriptures can get it right?
I am not a translation expert, but I do know that when there are multiple possibillities for translation of a word, then you should look at the word in it’s immediate context. If this does not help, you should look in the wider context.
But be it immidiate or wide, at this stage there is always intepretation involved. Which is always influenced by the presuppositions, opinions and theologies of the translators.
In case of a bible translation, it is often a committiee which has to decide between the different opinions of translators, linguists and proofreaders.
The way that I word it is that we know what the head of the spear of the AC ’s empire will be: The ME. Beyond this, (the shaft of the spear) we do not know yet.
I know what you’re saying here, that it sounds like a revisionist notion, and we have to be careful here. But I think many of our translations necessarily contain a certain amount of bias, since translators must attempt to determine what the author was trying to say in order to form the proper context of a given word.
One example I can think of is the “ships of Kittim” in Daniel that I’ve mentioned here recently. The ESV properly identifies “Kittim”, while the NIV uses “western coastlands”. The NIV interpreters felt this prophecy was fulfilled in the 2nd century B.C. when Roman ships turned Epiphanes away from Egypt. But the ESV interpreters did not apply that bias, and merely let the text say what it said.
So there you go. Two widely variant opinions, with one interpretation saying these ships will come from Cypress, and another saying from Rome.
Even though the AC will probably not rule America or the Western nations directly, he likely will influence us through his manipulation of oil markets. We can already see this affect in the world today, where western policies have been altered to assure the continued flow of oil. When the AC appears, no doubt this will be magnified tenfold.
Perhaps this will force us to finally do what we should have done decades ago, and that is, develop our own reserves. Our elected leaders have created many of our economic woes by implementing punitive policies that curtailed domestic production. All those trillions we have sent overseas could have remained within our own borders, creating great wealth domestically.
Ross Perot thought NAFTA was a ‘giant sucking sound’, but frankly, OPEC puts NAFTA to shame in this regard.
I understand that translation is not inspired, and I also know that ancient words can have more than one meaning. But in this guy’s article the translations he gave for the various Greek words were so clear as to not be speaking of global referents that I just don’t know how translators in the past ever translated them as such.
Stuart,
I agree that the greek words are clear. As for the translators biases or mistranslations i am reminded of what it says in Daniel 12 about how when the end times come the wise will understand and teach many.
I believe that is what is happening today. the wise who seek only God’s truth and understanding are able to interpret properly because we want only what God has for us not what others think we should have.
I believe the books are opened and as Jesus said, You shall know truth and the truth will set you free. And also he said, The Comforter will come to us and teach us ALL things. I believe that with all my heart if we stay true.
Hi everyone. Great discussion, especially concerning the importance of Biblical linguistics in regard to interpretation…
Laurence said:
“Revelation is in Greek, but many think that even the NT was originally written in Hebrew and afterwards translated into Greek; either way, John had a Hebrew mindset.”
Alex says:
May I suggest that the “missing link” so to speak is the native language of the NT writers, which was…Aramaic (Hebrew was a liturgical language back then, not a spoken language).
It is imperative to include the Aramaic language for comparison with the Greek, because even if the NT authors really did pen their writings in Greek (which I don’t believe), they still thought and more importantly conversed with God in Aramaic. Think of it this way, when you pray to God you do so in your native language, even if you are fluent in another. Likewise if God had speak to you audibly, would He not do so in your native language rather than your second language? I guess what I’m trying to say is, although the oldest NT mss are in Greek, the truth is the “God-breathed” original is Aramaic - that is why we need to look at the Aramaic NT mss (like the Peshitta) as well, Aramaic is more important than Greek.
Staurt Wall said:
“OK I’m getting more convinced of this regional approach to the global. But can anyone answer why our Bible translators from the last few centuries have got the Greek so completely wrong when it seems any part time student of the scriptures can get it right?”
Staurt Wall said:
“I understand that translation is not inspired, and I also know that ancient words can have more than one meaning. But in this guy’s article the translations he gave for the various Greek words were so clear as to not be speaking of global referents that I just don’t know how translators in the past ever translated them as such.”
Alex says:
The Revelation that we know (i.e. the Greek version) is the earliest translation of the original Aramaic which John penned, which it seems hasn’t survived. As a native Greek speaker who’s well versed in the Greek Bible, I can say that there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that Greek is the original language of that book.
The Greek of Revelation is absolutely horendous, arguably the worst Greek ever written in Greek literature (the Gospel of Mark is almost as bad), it is unthinkable that Almighty God & His Son would audibly speak to John in grammar so bad it would make even the most uneducated Greek cringe, nevermind Aristotle or Plato.
The Greek translation of John’s original is both good and bad - good in the sense that it’s extremely literal, so a near perfect reconstruction of what the original said is possible; but bad in the sense that it’s too literal and is therefore unpleasant to the ear and the symbolism is layered & difficult to interpret - I highly doubt that John intended his composition to be as confusing as it now is.
It’s not impossible to understand Revelation, but understanding it requires effort to unravel the symbolism which is quite heavily stacked - if you don’t consult the Aramaic language you’re not going to get very far.
Since we have yet to uncover Aramaic autographs of Revelation (doesn’t mean we never will, remember the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered less than 100 years ago), we unfortunately cannot compare the Greek version we have with an untranslated Aramaic version. While the 2 extisting Aramaic versions (Crawford & Harklean) are translations of the Greek translation, they nevertheless do offer some very important insights, so they are not a complete loss.
Otherwise comparing the Aramaic of Daniel with the LXX translation, Peshitta OT & Targums is helpful. For example:
Rodrigo Silver said in his article:
The fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7, is the same kingdom of Revelation 13, namely that of the beast. Concerning the fourth kingdom we read:
‘’Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth. . . ‘’ (Daniel 7:23)
Here we read that the fourth beast which is the kingdom of the Antichrist will devour the whole earth. This seems the be a universal or global kingdom. The Aramaic phrase here translated is the phrase כל ארע kol ara. The same phrase appear in Daniel 2 where we read:
‘’And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth [kol ara].'’ (Daniel 2:39)
The third kingdom of brass which would bear rule over ‘’ALL THE EARTH'’ is the Grecian Empire of Alexander the Great. A map of the Grecian Empire will reveal that it DID NOT rule the whole world but only extended from Macedon in the West to the Indus River which is the border between India and Pakistan.”
Alex says:
The key Aramaic phrase here “kol ara”, is translated by the LXX as “pasys tys gys”, i.e. “all the region”, there is that Greek word “ge” from Strong’s, not “kosmos” which Rodrigo did a great job in pointing out the difference. Just goes to show how accurate and unbiased the ancient translations of the original languages are.
Ok so if this is a regional kingdom is there hope that the US might find her soul again and be in support of Israel and helping those who hide from the dragon?
Thinking about the 1290 days she is nurtured. I understand that the area of petra is it? where there is a hiding place but i wonder if there will be various hiding places?
sorry for being all over the place but the idea of regional really makes things clearer methinks.
blessings
I trust that as a Greek speaker you will continue to add insights into these translation discussions. I would love to hear about the specific areas in the Revelation where you feel the Greek may misrepresent the original transcript. I know this would require some speculation on your part, but this is just an exchange of ideas. So, if you would entertain that, I would listen.
Will the U.S find her soul again? Hmmm. Tough question. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. We are definitely lost in the wilderness just now.
Many have speculated that Petra will be the place prepared by God for those that will “flee to the mountains” after the abomination. It follows that this may be why Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be saved from the AC’s hand at that time. But I think there will be other ‘hiding places’ as well for Jews in the last days, since several prophets wrote of Israelites being delivered to Israel by nations from all parts of the world at the beginning of the Millennium.
All of this makes sense if the AC’s rule was only regional.
As much as I think the AC’s rule will be regional, we can’t forget Islams global aspirations. The AC may not have absolute control over the entire planet, but imagine the chaos here in the US and other Western countries far off from the ME when the Muslim Messiah appears.
If we think Muslims are bold now, wait until they think their Mahdi is supporting them.
Alex, I was very intrigued by your comment about Revelation being written in Aramaic and that you are well versed in the Greek Bible. If possible, please get in touch with me through my e-mail address on the web site. I would like to talk to you about some Greek words for a book I am trying to write.
MIke,
i too keep thinking of that. that all nations will release the Jews.
this is such a good discussion on the original language i hope you all post more good stuff. (hint hint Alex and Rodrigo and others)
CHRISTIANS ARE GETTING THE PICTURE. THE AC WILL NOT RULE THE WHOLE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT TODAY ,BUT HIS INFLUNCE WILL BE FELT THU OUT THE WORLD.HERE I GO OUT ON A LIMB THE MARK THE BIBLE REFERS TO WILL NOT BE WORLD WIDE ASK ANY AMERICAN IF HE HAS HEARD OF THE MARK OF THE BEAST MOST WILL SAY YES GO TO THE MIDDLE EAST AND ASK THIS QUESTION MOST WILL NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT .I HAVE A DEAR BROTHER WHO SPENT YEARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ASK THIS OUESTION 99 PERCENT ANSWERD NO . BUT REMEMBER WE AMERICANS WILL NOT BE SETTING ON SUNNY BEACHES ARE COOKING HAMBURGERS DURING THIS TIME, CHRISTIAN IN THE U.S WILL BE PERSCUTED IT IS JUST NOW BEGINNING.
When I read this yesterday, I found it very interesting and thought provoking. However after reading the following article, I believe he is wrong in suggesting the ac will only affect people directly “regionly”. Please prayerfully consider this other perspective and critic of this article. JM
The article makes several valid points. However the article also makes some of the same mistakes it corrects, ultimately taking quite a long route only to make one small point. In other words, in my opinion, it amounts to bit of of smoke and mirrors. What do I mean by this? In the end, there is really only one word that would absolutely show universality. And that would be Kosmos. Ge, could be universal, but it also could he local as any word study will show. No need for a long drawn out lesson in logical fallacies and critical reviews of various lexicons to make that one small point.
However this issue of the Antichrist’s dominion does not revolve around these two words. There are many other very relevant Scriptures to be considered. When that is done, it is somewhat clear that the Antichrist’s rule will be primarily regional, over ten nations. Notice I said primarily. His influence will likely extend throughout the earth, bu it will not be absolute. Perhaps I will post my notes on this as well.
Thank you so much for that article John! I don’t think anyone got my point earlier in this thread, which was that the translators of previous centuries could not simply have just made up their global translation if there was not also a genuine global alternative translation. Rodrigo should have made the point that he was just choosing one alternative to the Greek meanings and that it was not the only meaning!
Saying all that, I agree with Joel’s statement above. And just because Rodrigo was deceptive through omission, it doesn’t mean that his interpretation is wrong. This is surely one of those “wait and see” interpretations - like most prophecy. Unless we can get our hands on those original Aramaic documents…
I need to chime in on this one. I can assure you that Rodrigo was not “deceptive” in any way shape or form. I know Rodrigo and I can assure you that he is perhaps one of the most genuinely humble of all of the various prophecy students and teachers that I know. He should have been a bit more thorough in his research, and worded a few things more accurately, but we all make mistakes.
I think we would all like to see your notes on this. I certainly would, since I’ve taught a module on this very thing, and would love to have some additional support for the future. This ‘regional’ notion is a bit difficult for some people to accept.
imo the idea of regional should not be that difficult to wrap our brains around.
For example, Hitler. Now this guy was regional in his power base yet what he did moved the whole earth to battle. It affected everyone yet not every nation was conquered. This era methinks is the most applicable of explanations as the whole world was truly affected. Truly a shadow of what is to come.
Also the ottoman empire was regional but not every nation was conquered yet their influence and the trouble they brought interrupting trade etc was felt in all the known world.
fwiw
blessings
That’s an interesting rebuttal. I guess I’m going to have to return to this topic for more study. I still lean towards the regional model based on self-contained clues like Neb’s Dream in Daniel 2, where he was given dominion over the whole earth, but certainly did not rule over the whole earth. Or perhaps Alexander’s ‘goat’ that cross the whole earth without touching the ground, though Alexander certainly did not cross the entire earth as we know it.
Applying precise meaning to these words is a bit of a problem, and the immediate context of the passage or verse must be considered, to be sure. This in fact is how I originally arrived at the regional concept of the AC’s rule, since Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander’s kingdoms were only regional, despite the “whole earth” statements in those verses. That, combined with God’s destruction of those same regional nations in the last days, led me to a regional concept.
That being said, it is true that the entire world will suffer tribulation of one sort or another. But I can never shake the various passages, that have an end times context, that say things like the following;
Isa 24:14 “They raise their voices, they shout for joy; from the west they acclaim the LORD’S majesty. 15 Therefore in the east give glory to the LORD;…”
In this passage, “the west” is still worshipping the Lord. From this, it doesn’t sound like we will completely fall into the AC’s clutches.
Pre-trib and even pre-wrath proponents will be very reluctant to acknowledge that the rule of Antichrist could be primarily regional as Scripture as a whole clearly suggests. I think they understand that if the AC’s rule is in fact primarily regional, then their whole argument in support of a pre-trib or even pre-wrath rapture (of the Rosenthal variety) rests on very shaky ground when considering that there will be significant portions of the globe that will be resistor nations.
“The article makes several valid points. However the article also makes some of the same mistakes it corrects”
I’d be interested in seeing what those are.
Also, you wrote,
“ultimately taking quite a long route only to make one small point. In other words, in my opinion, it amounts to bit of of smoke and mirrors.”
Long route? I was only responding to Rodigo’s article point-by-point, which his article is longer than mine! If I had only written a two-paragraph response to his lengthy article I would have been (and rightly so) accused of writing an insufficient article.
Moreover, it is not a small point. It has consequences on practical life. I ended my article with this:
Pretribulationsts are teaching that the Church will not experience the Great Tribulation; and Preterists claiming that the Church will not be in the Great Tribulation in the future; and Silva’s article argues that the universal Church will not be included in Antichrist’s realm since it will only be local.
Difficult times are coming upon the universal Church. God will call the last generation of the universal Church to experience the wrath of Antichrist. We need to be prepared with good teaching, and a blameless heart.
Ok.
Further, how can you possibly read my article and say that it is smoke and mirrors? I provided specifics; I documented; I reasoned; etc. It was a substantive article–anything but smoke and mirrors.
Again you wrote,
“What do I mean by this? In the end, there is really only one word that would absolutely show universality. And that would be Kosmos. Ge, could be universal, but it also could he local as any word study will show. No need for a long drawn out lesson in logical fallacies and critical reviews of various lexicons to make that one small point.”
This is demonstrably wrong. I documented that ge and oikoumenē can often refer to universality. All the Greek lexicons agree with this. Since you disagree with all the Greek lexicons, then you have to provide counter-evidence that these words cannot mean this.
Another synonym that can be used to show universality, which I did not mention in my article, is anthrōpou (e.g. Revelation 9:15, 20). There are other synonyms as well that show universality.
And though kosmos can refer to universality, it frequently does not show universality. For example in the book of John, from the Jewish perspective it means the gentile nations. We often miss John’s theology because we read back our 21 century universality meaning of the word “world.” What was shocking to the Jew was that Christ died not only for the Jews, but for the Gentiles! (i.e. the world).
And word actually has a dozen different meanings in the Bible.
So the fact is that there are a cluster of words that have universal meanings in their semantic ranges. Kosmos is not the only one of them. Second, examining context is primary.
I think the point here is this: When Scripture is compared with Scripture with respect to passages concerning the Antichrist, the greek word “ge” in Revelation 13:8 is best understood not as the whole literal earth but rather all the surrounding nations that a number of other OT passages refer to, i.e., “a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region.” I agree that if John wanted to convey the meaning of the whole literal earth he would have been inspired by the Spirit to clearly convey that intention, but John does not. In light of the multitude of Old Testament passages that consistently speak of surrounding nations or nations round about Jerusalem, it would be hermeneutically unsound to state that Revelation 13:8 absolutely must be speaking of planet earth as a whole.
Zechariah 14:2, “For I will gather ALL nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity…”
Look at Zech 14:2. This verse needs to agree with other verses of Scripture, which are explicit in stating that it is all of the surrounding nations. Since Scripture does not contradict Scripture, we need to apply proper hermeneutics to our understanding of 14:2. All the nations, as verse 14 states, are the surrounding nations and not all nations of the whole earth — for one, it would be a logistical impossibility for it to literally be all nations on the planet to surround the city of Jerusalem. That is common sense. Joel agrees with Zachariah in saying that it is the surrounding nations, and Ezekiel agrees as well by calling them “malicious neighbors”. Zechariah would not claim all nations on the planet in verse 2 and then turn around and say just the surrounding nations in verse 14. In the context of this chapter it is obvious that Zechariah is referring only to the surround nations, just as Joel and Ezekiel tell us.
Zechariah 14:14 “Judah also will fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the SURROUNDING nations will be gathered, gold and silver and garments in great abundance.”
Zechariah 12:2 “I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the SURROUNDING peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem.”
Joel 3:11-12 “Hasten and come, all you SURROUNDING nations, And gather yourselves there. Bring down, O LORD, Your mighty ones. Let the nations be aroused And come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat,For there I will sit to judge All the SURROUNDING nations.”
Ezekiel 28:24-26 “‘No longer will the people of Israel have malicious NEIGHBORS who are painful briers and sharp thorns. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD. ” ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I gather the people of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered, I will show myself holy among them in the sight of the nations. Then they will live in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. They will live there in safety and will build houses and plant vineyards; they will live in safety when I inflict punishment on all their NEIGHBORS WHO MALIGNED AGAINST THEM. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God.’”
First, we are to interpret the Old in light of the New, not the other way around.
Second, this avoids responding to my exegesis of the meanings of those words and the context of Revelation. You can’t just simply flatten or avoid my exegesis by saying: “the old testament talks about nations in the vicinity of Israel.” Revelation has a universal thrust to the book, not a local one, and John clearly conveys this.
Third, just because there are passages in the Old testament that predict judgment on the nations of Israel, by no means requires that the Day of the Lord’s wrath is limited to the surrounding areas of Israel. If one wants to be consistent, then when the OT predicts that all the nations of the earth will go up and worship the Lord, that can only mean the tangential nations to Israel.
Why do you demand that God must reveal to the nation of Israel in their near eastern context the names of nations and regions thousands of years into the future for him to communicate the whole earth? I find that oddly anachronistic.
Fourth, are you and Rodrigo really going to try to argue that the following promise is limited to only the nations surrounding Israel?:
“I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”” (Gen 12:3).
By the way, the Greek word there used of “earth” in the LXX is γῆ.
Also, your comment assumes your pressup of the Day of the Lord being a single 24-hour day, as well as not recognizing that there are three Battle campaigns in the future. Zechariah 14:2 is speaking of only one of those battles. Again, I would recommend reading some prewrath material. There are significant differences between the Battle of Jehosphat and the Battle of Armageddon. See Robert Van Kampens book _The Sign_ pp 288-89.
Please read prewrath literature first if you wan to discuss these matters of the nations surrounding Israel for battle.
My criticism of Rodrigo’s article was not based on any lack of thoroughness in his research or any bad wording that he might have expressed. My criticism is that he clearly omitted one of the definitions of the Greek word “ge” (which is that it can mean the whole world) which would otherwise have made the conclusiveness of his article redundant. Here is the full list of interpretations for “ge” from the Strong’s concordance, which Rodrigo said he used:
1) arable land
2) the ground, the earth as a standing place
3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water
4) the earth as a whole
a) the earth as opposed to the heavens
b) the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region
The Strong’s concordance clearly shows (as listed above) that “ge” can be interpreted as global. His whole article ignored translation 4 and was based on the premise that the word “ge” can only be translated as regional.
So you can’t tell me that his words are not deceptive. Whether he intended to be deceptive is another matter and one that I did not address.
As with the decate on Catholicism, I kindly ask you to stop interpreting my comments as personal attacks on people. You have no need to defend anyone from me, I am simply trying to make sure that the truth is the winner of any debate.
Alan, I agree that we should often interpret the Old in light of the New, but that does not mean that we cannot gain useful insight into New Testament Scripture by referring to the Old Testament. Look at the Bereans in Acts 17:10-11 who were called more noble because “they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Tell me, what Scriptures did they have to search? The Old Testament Scriptures. While I appreciate your exegetical analysis of the text, I see it as one dimensional in the sense that you have approached the text with a preconceived belief that Antichrist’s rule is literally global, and then formulate a reasoning in support of that presupposition. If the presupposition is removed and we allow the text to speak for itself, I believe that we can ascertain that the rule of the Antichrist will not be over the entire literal earth when the whole of Scripture is compared.
Alan - “Third, just because there are passages in the Old testament that predict judgment on the nations of Israel, by no means requires that the Day of the Lord’s wrath is limited to the surrounding areas of Israel…. Why do you demand that God must reveal to the nation of Israel in their near eastern context the names of nations and regions thousands of years into the future for him to communicate the whole earth? I find that oddly anachronistic.”
I agree that it does not require it, but it certainly suggests it. All references to the return of Christ and where He goes and whom He punishes refers to the surrounding nations. Why do we not find any Scripture that even suggests, for example, that He punishes and destroys nations outside and beyond the Middle East?
Alan - “If one wants to be consistent, then when the OT predicts that all the nations of the earth will go up and worship the Lord, that can only mean the tangential nations to Israel.”
First, we’re speaking about the rule of Antichrist, the ten-nation coalition that he controls, and the extent of his control beyond this ten-nation coalition. The whole of Scripture paints a picture for us that is primarily regional. Second, Zechariah 14:16 says that “And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.” However, there is nothing in the text or in the whole of Scripture that precludes other nations from visiting Israel to worship the King, so when it comes to consistency we need to consistently use all of Scripture and not just select passages.
Alan - “Fourth, are you and Rodrigo really going to try to argue that the following promise is limited to only the nations surrounding Israel?: “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”” (Gen 12:3).”
Are there any other verses in Scripture that limit this blessing to only the surrounding peoples and nations of Israel? There is your answer.
Hello again everyone, some answers to your questions:
Laura said
Alex,
very cool!
Ok so if this is a regional kingdom is there hope that the US might find her soul again and be in support of Israel and helping those who hide from the dragon?
Thinking about the 1290 days she is nurtured. I understand that the area of petra is it? where there is a hiding place but i wonder if there will be various hiding places?
sorry for being all over the place but the idea of regional really makes things clearer methinks.
blessings
Alex says:
Hi Laura, well truth be told I’m not an American so I don’t go out of my way to try to find America in Bible prophecy or make predictions concerning her (or any other country for that matter, including my own).
The truth is this nationalistic mentality (”I’m proudly American” or “I’m proudly Greek”, ect. ect.) is pagan, Messiah said His kingdom is not of this world. We are Christians, we are not of this world (well, we’re not supposed to be) we should not “do as the pagans do”, we are meant to be one, just as the Father and the Son are one. Patriotism for our earthly (note temporary) homes is one of the greatest factors that is dividing the Church. Obsession about our earthly possessions and identity is futile, our Lord and King told us to seek first the kingdom - His kingdom NOT any other kingdom, because in the end it’s all gonna burn up in smoke anyway.
I don’t think the way the American church is handling situation in the State of Israel correctly. The much wealthier and secure western church should actually provide more support to the Palestinian Christians than the Israeli Jews. Now hear me out on this - the Palestinian Christians are being severly oppressed by the Palestian Muslims and sometimes even by the Israelis. Because they are getting little support from their brethren in the west they are turning to their “Muslim brothers” who are the enemies of YHWH. This lack of support from the western church is causing these believers in Messiah to sin by “yoking themselves with unbelivers”. This has to stop, the Palestinian Christians are in a good position to be “salt and light” to unbelieving “children of Abraham” around them, but they cannot do so without our help - help them, so that they won’t have to feel they must align themselves with the Muslims and so that their opportunities to witness to the Jews and Muslims won’t continue to go wasted - God is concerned with bringing souls into His kingdom, not furthering the cause of man’s kingdoms.
And about the Jews being “nutured” in the “wilderness” for 1290 days, I haven’t dealt with this particular issue in enough detail to form an opinion yet, but I think it’s possible that it has nothing to do with the tribulation but rather the history of persecution of the Jews in totality. Clue: look carefully at the position of the crowns in Rev. 12, 13 & 17. In 12 they’re on the 7 horns of the dragon, in 13 they’re on the 10 horns of the beast, in 17 they’re nowhere in sight, but we’re told that the 10 horns “have yet to receive a kingdom”, do you see the significance of this?
I trust that as a Greek speaker you will continue to add insights into these translation discussions. I would love to hear about the specific areas in the Revelation where you feel the Greek may misrepresent the original transcript. I know this would require some speculation on your part, but this is just an exchange of ideas. So, if you would entertain that, I would listen.
Alex says:
Sure I’d be happy to compile a list of errors in Greek Revelation as well as the different readings in the existing Aramaic versions which do indeed make more sense. However I think it’s best I move this to Joel’s forum as this subject is too comprehensive for a blog post. Hopefully I’ll have time this week, otherwise check Joel’s forum sometime next week.
Alex, I was very intrigued by your comment about Revelation being written in Aramaic and that you are well versed in the Greek Bible. If possible, please get in touch with me through my e-mail address on the web site. I would like to talk to you about some Greek words for a book I am trying to write.
The Strong’s concordance clearly shows (as listed above) that “ge” can be interpreted as global. His whole article ignored translation 4 and was based on the premise that the word “ge” can only be translated as regional.
So you can’t tell me that his words are not deceptive. Whether he intended to be deceptive is another matter and one that I did not address.
Alex says:
Stuart Greeks never use “ge” to refer to the entire planet, as Rodrigo’s landlord confirmed that “kosmos” is the correct word. Linguistics is not as simple as looking up a term in dictionary or lexicon, it also involves studying the history of how the word was used, and even how it is used today.
To my knowledge there is no literature outside the Greek Bible that ever applies “ge” to a global context, the word always used is “kosmos”.
Perhaps there are other linguistic rules as you explain. My issue was that the translations given in Strong’s concordance for “ge” was not properly represented in Rodrigo’s article. It’s important to be fully transparent in situations like this because translation experts who compile these concordances surely know more about ancient languages than native speakers do about their modern languages. The two are not the same. This was addressed in the article John linked to. Whatever the true translation may be, selectively choosing meanings for a word from a concordance and representing them as though they were the full list is misleading.
As I said before, I’m not guessing intentions. But misrepresentations need to be exposed for what they are.
what I would’ve said in Rodrigo’s place is how do we know for sure whether to translate Ge and Oikoumene as global or regional (because only Kosmos is clearly global)? this is really important!
the answer is simple, based on other passages in the Scriptures, I gave some in my above post; also, like I said it is really important to understand the mindset of the OT/NT authors, they had a Hebrew (Aramaic) mindset
in order to understand words like “every” and “all” like in “every tribe”, “all the world “, we need to first understand the Hebrew language; that means to study much more than a few paragraphs, but from Genesis to Revelation the usage of “every” and “all”; “all” is the Hebrew word “kol” and its meaning depends on context whether in our case is “all the world” or “all the region” and “every tribe in the world” or “every tribe in the region”
Rodrigo’s article is good, because he presents the regional meaning of those words which not many talk about, but he needs to be careful because the way he wrote the article, it sounds misleading and biased, like the meaning of the words is only regional
I didn’t realize that my comments would invoke such a response. Simply stated, by smoke and mirrors, I only mean that IMO, your article gave far more information than was necessary to make your point. A simple, explanation that ge can, but does not always mean the whole earth would have been enough. Again, just offering my opinion. Perhaps this is just my own personal preference, but whenever I read one of these books that presents a few perspectives on some theological issue, I am always leery of that contributor who feels the need to go overkill in their explanations. I felt as though your response leaned in this direction. Again, just offering my opinion.
As to an example of an error in your response. Here would be a good example:
“This is demonstrably wrong. I documented that ge and oikoumenē can often refer to universality. All the Greek lexicons agree with this. Since you disagree with all the Greek lexicons, then you have to provide counter-evidence that these words cannot mean this”
Straw Man 101. Never did I claim ge cannot mean universality. In fact, I fully agreed with you.
Next:
“First, we are to interpret the Old in light of the New, not the other way around. Second, this avoids responding to my exegesis of the meanings of those words and the context of Revelation. You can’t just simply flatten or avoid my exegesis by saying: “the old testament talks about nations in the vicinity of Israel.” Revelation has a universal thrust to the book, not a local one, and John clearly conveys this.”
Now regarding OT versus NT and which comes first, the chicken or the egg. This is most certainly not a settled issue among believers. I would argue that yes, the OT should be reinterpreted in light of the NT. However one cannot even understand the NT properly unless one first understands the OT in its context. This approach has led to replacement theology. But certainly one cannot begin with that which comes last. Nor can one begin with that which is the most symbolic and difficult to interpret in the whole Bible. This is common sense. One must begin with that which comes first. The Book of Rev comes last for a reason. So IMO, one must properly understand the many passages that Mitchell laid out if one is to understand the nature of the rule of the AC with regard to this discussion. Scripture emphasizes ten nations that the Ac will rule over. It lists many of them. Surely many others will also fall. But anything beyond this is assumption. And universality is impossible. It actually lists nations that will not fall to him. See Daniel 11 for instance.
Regional or global, either way I think it’s clear the AC wont completely control the whole world. Why else would there be war and conflict? I think it has to be more that attacking Christians.
I don’t think anyone was suggesting here that the “universal church” will be spared; most who posted in this thread clearly said that AC’s rule will affect the whole world; and of course God will judge the whole world, and judgment starts in the House of God; I think people here were simply debating the borders of AC’s kingdom
Thanks for your responses. I want to close with a final question to Silva, and only him. There is a salient issue that Stuart who is the only one who has brought it up here.
Rodrigo argues that ge is limited to only a regional meaning according to Strongs. As I have demonstrated, this is massively in error, since Strongs does in fact list a global sense of the word. I wondered what he was thinking when he made that claim.
If that was not bad enough, he does it again with claiming that Strongs lists oikoumenē as only limited to a region and not global. In his own words: “It does not refer to the globe…”
If that was not bad enough again, he makes this bold claim about myself and others who recognize that these words can have a global sense:
“This is a pick and choose approach which leads to inconsistency.”
That is nothing less than chutzpah. Since who is the one really doing the picking and choosing?
I ask Silva specifically, and I don’t want anyone else here mind reading him or talking for him: Why did you make false documented claims, not once, but twice about Strongs Lexicon? It’s a fair and honest question.
I work very hard in being accurate and representing the other perspective. I make sure my exegesis is sound and coherent. I am not perfect. I have made errors in my reasoning and exegesis before. But the degree of selectively in your article is beyond measure.
I am sure you are an all-around good guy, love Christ, and enjoy studying prophecy. I am just troubled by that conspicuous omission. Actually it was more than an omission, you actually claimed that the words could not mean “global” according to Strongs.
I have dealt with pretribulationists for many years. I expect those guys to be selective and dubious since that is what many of them exhibit in their representations of prewrath and their own defense of their position. They make a trade out of it.
I have no idea if you are pretrib, post, or prewrath. I don’t think it matters in this situation.
I do think we are heading to the same conclusion, don’t you?
He doesn’t have to physically control the whole world, but by dominiating the vast majority of the world’s oil, he in effect can manipulate the “life blood” of industrial nations depending on whether or not they bow the knee to his control…simple and effective.
Now, it sounds good in theory, let’s see if plays out in reality….
A great discussion guys, and so spirited. I would just like to add a short admonition for all of us….that as we discuss the fine points of the soon-coming prophetic events……we remain stedfast in preparing for the “worst case senerio”. The enemy of our souls is a master in captivating the minds of men with “much discussion” while he quietly works in the background to keep true believers away from their only mandate……to be “witnesses” (look that one up in the Greek).
Stay the course saints…….it’s only going to get worse…..according to my bible anyway!
I often, rightly or wrongly, equate global rule with global influence. Joel’s spear analogy fits my thoughts. The size of the spearhead(rule) and the length of the shaft(influence) could possibly leave us with an odd looking spear. Because people live in all parts of the world I expect the Beast to be present in all parts of the world. I’m not sure about the depth of his presence though, like the scope of the mark of the Beast and direct Governmental rule.
I expect Nations will resist but it would be the Beast that they are resisiting. Will Europe fight against the possibility of Eurabia, will the South and Central American Governments, or even Mexico, resist rule or even influence. I’m not even assured that Canada will resist. Maybe modern day Nations won’t resist so much as the people within will resist. Maps and allegiances could be redrawn and redefined.
Will the United States remain united, will the United Kingdom remain United, will the European Union remain united. Even Canada has current, albeit seemingly negligible, unity issues with separatists in Quebec and Alberta. The emergence of the Beast could be the catalyst that breaks the Confederation.
I’m not confident that most of our current World leaders will place our Nations on the right side when the time comes. I’m hoping and praying we’ll have better leaders when things really start to go down.
There are millions of Muslims who reside in other nations outside of the Middle East, and a certain percentage of them may “radicalize” once they start believing that they are witnessing events that their own Islamic “eschatology” foretold. The Mahdi may be that catalyst, and I believe that terrorism will be a huge problem after the Abomination of Desolation. Just my opinion.
Please realize that one cannot rely on Strong’s lexicon alone for the real meanings of Greek words. As Paul Younan of Peshitta.org once stated:
“I think about another one of the responses to my question posed above, essentially stating that the definition is lacking support in the dictionaries.
Exactly it IS the other way around, if you want to know the true meaning of the word you need to study the history of it’s usage. The fact is “ge” never means “the entire world”, no ancient or modern Greek has ever applied “ge” in a global sense, and no Greek speaking Christian I know believes that the beast will rule the entire globe and the Greek church has never taught this.
Why does Strong list “the earth as a whole”? Because Strong, like most other Biblical scholars did not realize (or wouldn’t admit) that the Greek of the NT is not real Greek - it’s “Hellenized” Aramaic. The grammar structure is Semitic, and it contains a lot of Aramaic transliterations and invented words that don’t exist in the Greek language.
Make no mistake here, Greek is not the original language of any Bible book - no one ever spoke Greek like that. The “Greek” NT is a translation of an Aramaic original.
I am always amazed by individuals who make sweeping (false) claims about New Testament Greek.
Alex said,
“Exactly it IS the other way around, if you want to know the true meaning of the word you need to study the history of it’s usage.”
That is the common etymological fallacy. If you want to know the meaning of a word you study it in that little thing called…context.
You said,
“Make no mistake here, Greek is not the original language of any Bible book - no one ever spoke Greek like that. The “Greek” NT is a translation of an Aramaic original.”
You demonstrate your ignorance of Koine Greek, and that you are not even aware of the different literary levels within the Greek NT, e.g. Hebrews, Luke-Acts James being Literary Greek; and Revelation, Mark, John, being vulgar/semitic Greek.
Your fallacy is the inference that since a book such as Revelation has semitic influence, therefore it must have been a translation from Aramaic. At best it shows that the author’s native tongue is not the target language.
Furthermore, no one denies that here were not collections of Aramaic sources; e.g. Matthew and Luke. But to overthrow and undermine the fact that God ordained there would be a Greek canon denies God’s providence as well as undermines exegesis.
Take your phantom Aramaic-original New Testament books and peddle them somewhere else and quit being a troubler of God’s people.
“The fact is “ge” never means “the entire world”, no ancient or modern Greek has ever applied “ge” in a global sense, and no Greek speaking Christian I know believes that the beast will rule the entire globe and the Greek church has never taught this.”
That is so demonstrably in error that you are left with no credibility. Explain to me why most of the instances of this term means the “entire world”:
Alan said, “If you want to know the meaning of a word you study it in that little thing called…context”
I agree with this statement. However, the fact remains that the context of “ge” here is not intended to convey the whole literal earth when speaking about the Antichrist and his power, unless you wish to contend that Scripture contradicts Scripture when all references to Antichrist and his actions are compared.
I am always amazed by individuals who make sweeping (false) claims about New Testament Greek.
Alex said,
“Exactly it IS the other way around, if you want to know the true meaning of the word you need to study the history of it’s usage.”
Alan K said:
That is the common etymological fallacy. If you want to know the meaning of a word you study it in that little thing called…context.
Alex says:
No, no, Alan K. Greek does not work like Aramaic or Hebrew it is not a Semitic language. Greek is a very specific language, even more so than English that’s why it’s the language of Science, Medicine & Mathematics. Very few Greek words have more than one meaning.
Alan K said:
You said,
“Make no mistake here, Greek is not the original language of any Bible book - no one ever spoke Greek like that. The “Greek” NT is a translation of an Aramaic original.”
You demonstrate your ignorance of Koine Greek, and that you are not even aware of the different literary levels within the Greek NT, e.g. Hebrews, Luke-Acts James being Literary Greek; and Revelation, Mark, John, being vulgar/semitic Greek.
Alex says:
Dude there was literary or “Classical” Greek and colliquial Greek with many dialects (Athenian, Corinthian, Ephesian, ect.). There are many dialects of modern colliquial Greek and it is ludacrious to assume that there was only one dialect of 1st century colloquial Greek - that is illogical.
And yes I am aware of the varying quality of Greek between the books of the Greek NT, which only leans more favour that it’s a translation and not the original language. And then there are the variants between the mss, and I don’t mean spelling errors or slips of the scribe’s pen, I mean where one verse reads one way in one mss and a different way in another (eg: burn/boast in 1 Cor. 13:3). Tell me where did those variants come from? Which reading is the original?
The Greek of the NT doesn’t resemble either Classical or colliquial Greek, no one ever spoke Greek with Semitic grammar, not even the Jews. Here’s an illustration of what I mean:
Classical Greek:
I enquired of thou where art mine computer?
Colloquial Greek:
I asked you, where is my computer?
The Greek of the NT:
Ask you I, my computer is where?
That is exactly what the Greek NT sounds like when you hear it being read, just like the LXX which we all know is translated from Hebrew & Aramaic, there is no difference. Yes I understand what it means but it sounds that awful. C’mon do you honestly believe that God will speak to anyone like this?
And please tell me why the Aramaic word shakira is transliterated in Luke 1:15 as sikera? Greeks had their own word for “strong drink” we didn’t need to borrow it from Aramaic. Also please tell me why Luke’s Greek is even surpassed by that of Josephus who himself admitted that he wasn’t a native Greek speaker?
Do you want more examples? I have plenty, I’ve done my homework thank you very much.
Alan K said:
Your fallacy is the inference that since a book such as Revelation has semitic influence, therefore it must have been a translation from Aramaic. At best it shows that the author’s native tongue is not the target language.
Alex says:
What about the word galkolivano in Revelation 1:15? Can you find it in any Greek literature outside the Greek Bible? I can’t and I’ll tell you why - this word doesn’t exist in the Greek language, it’s an invented word.
Or what about alpha and omega in Revelation 1:8? Why is that in every Greek text except the very late Textus Receptus the word alpha is written but the letter omega stands by itself?
Alan K says:
Furthermore, no one denies that here were not collections of Aramaic sources; e.g. Matthew and Luke. But to overthrow and undermine the fact that God ordained there would be a Greek canon denies God’s providence as well as undermines exegesis.
Alex says:
Who said I’m denying that there would be a Greek cannon? Of course there would be but that doesn’t mean it’s the original cannon. Yes of course the Word of God is meant to be translated into every language but a translation cannot claim to be the original - even the Muslims understand that much. The fact is the original words of God and His son are the ones that they themselves spoke IN THE LANGUAGE they spoke them. Like I said earlier when you pray to God you pray in your native language not your second language, so then why would God speak to you in your second language rather than your native language? C’mon now this is common sense is it not?
No one denies that the NT authors were native Aramaic speakers, so why would God speak to them in any language other than their own? Try to slice it anyway you buddy, the “God brethed” original can only be Aramaic.
(BTW there is no concrete evidence that Luke was Greek or even that he was a gentile, all we know about him was that he was born in Syrian Antioch. Note Syrian Antioch, where Syriac (i.e. Aramaic) was spoken as well as Greek, but the fact that his Greek wasn’t even as good as Josephus (a native Aramaic speaker) proves that he wasn’t a native Greek speaker either).
Alan K said:
Take your phantom Aramaic-original New Testament books and peddle them somewhere else and quit being a troubler of God’s people.
Alex says:
Oh so now I’m making trouble for God’s people just because I decide to use my brain instead of believing the mambo jumbo the unbelieving scholars try to feed me?
Jesus spoke Aramaic did He not? But according to popular western scholarship since the NT that we have is the “original” we have lost the original words of Jesus. I kid you not buddy, those Greek words are translated from the original Aramaic Jesus spoke, which means they’re not the words that actually proceeded from his mouth - which means the most important words ever uttered in history are lost forever! Do you realize the implications of this???
I do a lot of apologetic work, especially inter-religious dialogue with Muslims and they love nothing more than to tell me that the Church deliberately destroyed the original words of Jesus and replaced them with what they wanted Him to say. And they have no problem digging up all the dirty secrets of the Church (eg: check out the little side note for Hebrews 1:3 in the Codex Vaticanus and tell me what it says). So according to popular western scholarship we have the original words of Moses in the language he spoke them (Hebrew) and the original words of Muhammad in the language he spoke them (Arabic), and the original words of Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, ect. but we don’t have the original words of Jesus? Why not? Didn’t the Church even care to preserve the most important words ever uttered in any language???
Do you know how many Spirit-filled Christians abandon Christianity once they start attending seminary? Do you know that most of the translators and scholars who translate & publish the Bibles you read don’t even believe in a single word that is written in them???
Lemme tell you something mate, when you really start to delve deep into Church history and textual transmission you’ll discover the truth about the Greco-Roman church and it’s ugly - very ugly! It’s enough to make you abandon your faith. The Muslims accuse the Church of “corrupting the Bible” and guess what - they (the Greco-Roman church) did, go and examine the mss and see for yourself.
Had I not discovered the Peshitta, I would’ve converted to Judaism. The Peshitta has no errors and no variants - thank God there was a church that did care about preserving the original Apostolic writings, and isn’t it ironic that it was the church that was under Islamic rule - seems when we have to much freedom we become corrupt. The Peshitta has no revision history behind it (the Peshitta NOT the Peshitto), the Church of the East never altered a thing from day 1, not even the cannon, and good luck finding just one example, trust me you won’t no one can.
“But there are no Peshitta mss older than the 4th century.” There are no Greek mss older than the 4th century either there are only fragments. The Assyrians followed the Jewish practice burning their old copies before they started to fall apart - as soon as an mss (or page) became unsuitable for daily use (torn/faded) they would immediately make a new copy then burn the old one. Tell me why the oldest Hebrew Tanakh dates no earlier than AD 900? Yes I’m aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but these weren’t meant to become fragments - the Essenes hid them when the Romans invaded hoping to come back for them when times were less dangerous. Even so translators cannot work with fragments that’s why they still use the Masoretic text even though it’s the youngest OT text (the LXX, Peshitta Tanakh, Targums & Vulgate are all much older), likewise they can’t work with the Greek NT fragments so the truth is they translate your Bibles from mss that are no older than the Peshitta mss. They use Greek mss no older than the Peshitta, yet they use the Masoretic text instead of the LXX which is the oldest complete OT mss? A rather hypocritical approach wouldn’t you say?
There are many other reasons to question the claims most scholars make about the Peshitta but in end if we believe them we are still left with the delima that we have lost the words of Christ forever. I’m sorry but if they are right then we are left with no other alternative which means that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against the Church.
You think about that one before telling me about God’s providence.
Alan K said:
Alex said:
“The fact is “ge” never means “the entire world”, no ancient or modern Greek has ever applied “ge” in a global sense, and no Greek speaking Christian I know believes that the beast will rule the entire globe and the Greek church has never taught this.”
That is so demonstrably in error that you are left with no credibility. Explain to me why most of the instances of this term means the “entire world”:
Alex says:
Yes I also have BibleWorks and I also did that word search. You do know that the LXX is a translation right? You did know that there is no Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word olam didn’t you?
Firstly the LXX Torah was translated by Jews from Israel - the Letter of Aristeas states that the seventy-two Jewish scholars only translated the Torah. These were Aramaic speaking Jews, the other LXX books were (probably) translated by Alexandrian Jews who were Greek speakers. Perhaps the Israeli Jews didn’t have as good a grasp with Greek as the Alexandrian Jews, or perhaps they were so staunchly anti-Greek (check out the Talmud) that they refused to “Hellenize” their beloved books of Moses. And while you can compile lists from BibleWorks it’s evident that you didn’t read the verses, not all the verses you gave refer to the world.
What can I say the LXX is a translation and errors are inevitable, sometimes they used the correct word (eg: ge for Ruth 1:1) sometimes not (eg: ge for Genesis 1:1 - they should’ve used kosmos). Another example of a translation error in the LXX is Ezekiel 38:2 where they transliterated the Hebrew word rosh as ros instead of translated it as chief or head. How do I know this is an error? Go to 2 Samuel 15:32 or 16:1 and you’ll see the same error but spelt differently as roos, and compare it with the Hebrew. Did David go to the top or to the roos? The point is the LXX is a translation and for whatever reason it will contain errors.
BUT the Greek NT reads exactly like the LXX and contains many of the same errors - that is proof that it is a translation, last time I checked God does NOT inspire error! Not only that, guess what’s attached to the oldest complete Greek NT mss (which date to the 4th century) - the LXX! That should send warning bells ringing loud and clear and explains why the NT “seems” to quote the LXX. Many scholars have noticed places where a verse in the Greek NT was corrected to read like the LXX and vice versa for the sake of consistancy, this is especially obivious in the Codex Alexandrinus.
Now even English Bible translators do this and it’s not a problem - unless you believe it’s the original!
But it’s not all gloom and doom the power of the Holy Spirit is not limited by a flawed translation. Millions of souls have been brought into the kingdom despite the Greek NT’s flaws.
Alan said, “I’ll let the reader decide who is playing fast and loose with Scripture and who is seeking to handle God’s word properly in its context”
Fair enough. While they are doing that, however, can you please explain what your position on Romans 10:18 is? Rom 10:18 says, “But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into ALL THE EARTH, and their words unto the ends of the world.” Do you contend that “ge” in Romans 10:18 refers to the whole literal planet? If not, why not?
I understand your desire to support the position that the rule of Antichrist encompasses the entire globe, especially since the pre-wrath view (like the pre-trib view) requires that it be planet-wide in order for those two views to even begin making any sense, but this is not a contest to see who can formulate the longest arguments. This is a matter of sound hermeneutics that allow the whole of Scripture to speak for itself when it comes to the extent of Antichrist’s dominion.
Sound hermeneutics and sound logic go hand in hand.
Daniel 11:41 alone is proof that Antichrist’s power will NOT be global: “He shall also enter the Glorious Land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon”. Even if this is just referring to Jordan that should tell you something very revealing and cause you to ask why is it that the Antichrist is unable to control a relatively simple country like Jordan? Any why is it that Scripture is clear to point out that the trumpet and bowl judgments are only directed at Antichrist, upon those who have his mark and worship him? Does this not suggest that there will be many upon the earth who are not being subject to the trumpet and bowl judgments? If they were upon literally everyone on earth, why even bother to make that point?
Sir, your statements are most disturbing and fallacious. The fact that in your apologetics with Muslims you would intentionally undermine the Greek textual tradition is most disturbing, indeed. From reading your material, you know next to nothing about the confidence we can have as Christians in the textual reliability of the Bible. I have studied formally at Harvard Divinity in specifically New Testament textual criticism, and I have written extensively on it. You sir, are completely ignorant and irresponsible by your statements.
You wrote:
“I do a lot of apologetic work, especially inter-religious dialogue with Muslims and they love nothing more than to tell me that the Church deliberately destroyed the original words of Jesus and replaced them with what they wanted Him to say. And they have no problem digging up all the dirty secrets of the Church”
You are a Bart Ehrman clone. It is truly sad that you or your church or school has not educated you even on the most basic facts of the NT textual tradition.
I would advise you to cease speaking with Muslims since you undermine the reliability of the text. I would direct you to one of the most noted Christian apologists today who has debated many Muslims on the textual reliability of the NT BIble. He has demolished their arguments in every debate. His name is J. White. I also blog with him at his ministry site: http://www.aomin.org/
You wrote:
“Do you know how many Spirit-filled Christians abandon Christianity once they start attending seminary? Do you know that most of the translators and scholars who translate & publish the Bibles you read don’t even believe in a single word that is written in them?”
This is a bold face lie. First, if a Christian abandons Christianity when they get to seminary it is not because of the confidence in the textual material that is available to us. It is because of the like of people like yourself who undermine the text of the Bible with pet theories that mislead people, tremendously.
Also I read mostly the ESV, NET, and the NAS. These translators do in fact believe what they translated. Your statement is nothing less than defamation.
Your understanding of Greek linguistics is so convoluted.
For example you said,
“No, no, Alan K. Greek does not work like Aramaic or Hebrew it is not a Semitic language. Greek is a very specific language, even more so than English that’s why it’s the language of Science, Medicine & Mathematics. Very few Greek words have more than one meaning.”
You have to be kidding me?
Most Greek words have more than one meaning. Are you even remotely familiar with any New Testament Greek lexicons. Do you have a copy of BDAG which is what _every_ NT Greek scholar uses as the most authoritative lexicon? Have you studied Greek linguistics formally? What monographs on Koine Greek have you read in the past year?
You said,
“And then there are the variants between the mss, and I don’t mean spelling errors or slips of the scribe’s pen, I mean where one verse reads one way in one mss and a different way in another (eg: burn/boast in 1 Cor. 13:3). Tell me where did those variants come from? Which reading is the original?”
I am very familiar with the Greek MSS tradition. As I have noted above I have studied this subject formally. How on earth you can leap from the fact that there are variants to Aramaic originals is wishful thinking.
Your next statement belies your errors:
“That is exactly what the Greek NT sounds like when you hear it being read, just like the LXX which we all know is translated from Hebrew & Aramaic, there is no difference.”
There is no grammatical differences between the LXX and the NT Greek. That is demonstrably in error in your Greek philology. Since you have no knowledge of LXX Greek or NT Greek (you must be getting your statements from obscure Internet sites). I just direct you to a standard LXX grammar, _Grammar of Septuagint Greek_. Any first year Greek student who reads the LXX and the NT Greek sees the salient syntactical differences between these two bodies of literature.
You wrote:
“What about the word galkolivano in Revelation 1:15? Can you find it in any Greek literature outside the Greek Bible? I can’t and I’ll tell you why - this word doesn’t exist in the Greek language, it’s an invented word.”
Um… how is that suppose to prove that Revelation is originally Aramaic we are not told. But if you were familiar with Greek literature you would know that authors would combine words together to describe a concept that did not have a ready to use word. Paul did this in particular. I am writing a book at the moment and I already have about a dozen new words.
You wrote:
“Greek words are translated from the original Aramaic Jesus spoke, which means they’re not the words that actually proceeded from his mouth”
This is not the same as a witness to what Jesus said translating it and writing it down in Greek. And further, I don’t doubt at all that there were collections of his sayings written down in Aramaic, whereby, for example, Matthew using them to write his Greek gospel.
You wrote:
“Yes I also have BibleWorks and I also did that word search. You do know that the LXX is a translation right? You did know that there is no Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word olam didn’t you?”
Ah! the fallacy of equivocation. It is you sir, you claimed that ge could not mean entire earth. The issue was not that the LXX is a translation. You claimed that ge could not mean “entire earth,” and I documented thoroughly that the translators of the LXX clearly used that term in that sense. Now you are backtracking.
You wrote:
“there is no concrete evidence that Luke was Greek or even that he was a gentile, all we know about him was that he was born in Syrian Antioch.”
Here are some facts:
Theophilus was a Greek, not Jewish, which is why he has to explain traditions and words for a Greek. Here is one example of many: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.”
Jesus lived and grew up in a multilingual culture. It is very likely that he worked in a Greek city in Galilee and would have learned Greek as well as his Aramaic.
There is evidence that Luke was Greek. Further, Luke’s Greek is in the high literary and rhetorician of Greek, not Aramaic.
The book of the Revelation is written to seven churches in Asia. All the seven churches were in Greek cities. John was exiled on a Greek island. He wrote to people who were Greek. There is no reason why he would have written it in any other language.
Paul grew up in a Greek city and would have been fluent in Greek, which is why one of the reasons God sent him to the Greek world to spread the gospel.
His letters were sent to Greek speaking Churches and individuals. Timothy’s father was a Greek and he grew up in a Greek speaking region. Paul even asked him to stay with Greek speaking believers.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it proves sufficient that your claims are ludricous and without any support. It may work on your benighted audience, but not on those who understand these matters.
Nice try. That text is hardly relevant to the Antichrist’s ruling context, not to mention reading Daniel 11:41 back into the Revelation passages that have global scope to its context. I have read thousands of pages of your position. I will begin to have discourse with again once you take the time and actually read some primary literature on my position. Thank you.
Your argument is fundamentally anachronistic. You are projecting your modern knowledge of the existence of global nations into the ancient concept that the human race subsisted basically in the Near East, Africa, and Europe.
In Genesis 1:1, for example, where the LXX translates ge as earth, when Israel read or heard this text, they had only limited knowledge and would have included their limited scope of the world. But from our knowledge viewpoint, we know that the earth contains much more than the ancients were aware of it.
Or take for example:
“Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, (8) and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.” (Rev 13:7-8).
When the believers in the seven churches read this, they would have thought that “every tribe, people, etc” included their limited knowledge of their viewpoint. But we have the vantage point today to know that Christ’s redemption goes beyond the peoples of the Greco-Roman world and their peripheral nations.
So it is anachronistic to require that the Day of the Lord’s wrath will be limited in scope geographically to Israel and surrounding nations, as well as Antichrist’s orbit of ruling.
Hi Alan, there are no trick questions and I am fully aware that Rom 10:18 it is not related to the AC, but my questions are very simple. Can you please answer for me whether or not you believe that “ge” in Romans 10:18 is referring to the literal planet? With respect to Daniel 11:41, how can the Antichrist rule over every tribe, nation and tongue if even just one nation — in this case Jordan — is able to escape his hand? Do you really believe that Egypt and Jordan are the only nations on the earth that will resist Antichrist if he is fighting wars right up until Armageddon?
After all is said and done, it should be increasingly apparent that verses such as Revelation 13:7 are examples of a figure of speech that the Bible uses quite often known as synecdoche. What we should all strive to attain here is truth, not simply reasons to defend a pop-theology presupposition. Here are other unrelated examples from Scripture to show how God-inspired authors used figures of speech:
Luke 2:1-3 “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that ALL THE WORLD should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And ALL went to be taxed, every one into his own city.”
Mark 1:5, “And there went out unto him ALL the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were ALL baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.”
Daniel 2:36-38, “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; in your hands he has placed mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them ALL. You are that head of gold.”
Ezra 1:2, “Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD Elohim of heaven hath given me ALL the kingdoms of the earth;”
Col 1:23, “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to EVERY CREATURE WHICH IS UNDER HEAVEN; whereof I Paul am made a minister.”
Did Caesar literally tax the whole planet? Did Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus literally rule over the entire globe? Was every single last person in all of Judea and Jerusalem baptized in the Jordan river? Was the gospel preached to frogs, lizards and crickets? The answer to all of these is obviously no.
As such, it would not be prudent to dismiss the contention that Revelation 13:7-8 is not meant to be taken in a wooden literal sense, especially when “ge” can very easily mean anything but the whole literal earth, as Romans 10:18 shows. In light of the multitude of Scriptures regarding the Antichrist and his actions, his reactions, the fact that he is unable to subjugate Jordan under his control, the fact that his coalition consists of only ten nations, the fact that he is troubled by news out of the east and the north and is fighting wars right up until Armageddon, and the fact that he and his followers SPECIFICALLY are the object of God’s judgments during the trumpets/bowls leads me to come to only one conclusion: he is not the “all-powerful” global dictator that pop-theology has made him out to be.
Since I have argued that both gē and oikoumenē do include a global meaning in its semantic range (and quite frequently at that), and particularly in the global scope of the thrust of Revelation, I find it interesting that there is an instance of kosmos in Revelation that refers to the beast’s kingdom:
“Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.”” (Rev 11:15).
This is in the context of the seventh trumpet being blown and the celebration of God’s kingdom over the kingdom of the world.
If anyone tries to argue that this victory is over another kingdom not the “Beast’s kingdom,” demonstrates for everyone to see how encrusted they are to the notion that the Beast’s reign is only limited to a particular region.
I look forward to the creative exegetical acrobatics and leaps to explain away this one.
You should know better than that Alan. This is referring to the end of Daniel’s 70th week when the Millennial Reign is about to begin, and all kingdoms of the “kosmos” become the kingdoms of God.
Once again. You would not be asking half of your questions if you would read Prewrath literature.
Second, “all” frequently does not mean literally “all.” For example, God did not die for every single person who has ever lived. He died for his sheep, which includes all nations and tribes. God does not desire literally for all to be saved. See my exegesis of 1 Tim 2:4.
It is the context that determines what “all” means and citing passages that have nothing to do with the relevant texts are, well…irrelevant.
And finally, you seem to have a blind spot. You reason that since previous beast empires were limited to a particular region, a future Antichrist empire must be limited as well.
I suppose according to your reasoning a limited region will be deceived by this action: “fire comes down from heaven in front of people and, by the signs he was permitted to perform on behalf of the beast, he deceived those who live on the earth.
The tenor of Antichrist’s reach in Revelation is global.
I leave it up to you to explain away this text! It is does say “all kingdoms”! The text does not have “all”; and it is singular, not plural; and it has a definite article noting a particular kingdom.
Your digging that hole deeper. Cut your losses while you can
Another problem for the “limited region” view is that Paul warned the Thessalonians of the coming Antichrist and his persecution, thus his exhortation to stay faithful.
And where was that Church located? That’s right…in Europe!
Mitchell, I’ll leave it up to you to explain that Antichrist rule will not really reach Europe.
Hi Alan, you can believe it is global if you wish, that is your right, and I understand that it is a prerequisite to the pre-trib and pre-wrath rapture positions. In light of the whole of Scripture, however, I do not believe the AC’s rule is global and believe that Revelation 13:7-8 is another example of a synecdoche, a common figure of speech.
Alan asks, “I suppose according to your reasoning a limited region will be deceived by this action: “fire comes down from heaven in front of people and, by the signs he was permitted to perform on behalf of the beast, he deceived those who live on the earth.”
“He deceived those who live on the earth.” Sounds pretty absolute, doesn’t it? Are not the false miracles and deceptions of Islam already primarily regional? We both know that you and I will be here on the earth as will many other saints and I think that we will likely be able to witness any such events on the global media (whatever they may be), so will we be deceived, too, by these “lying wonders” since “he deceived those who live on the earth”? I can say with certainty that not everyone will believe in these false “miracles.” First, people like you and I know the Truth and will share it with others, and if they are “lying wonders” I think many of us will be able to figure out the truth or rationalize how those “lying wonders” were done. An Islamic Antichrist’s main audiences will be his Islamic followers, and they will be the primary group to fall for his false “miracles.” They already believe false miracles today as it is, such as “The Recitation” of the Qur’an, or the ascension of Mohammed into Heaven. Second, the Two Witnesses will oppose everything that the Antichrist does and I believe they will be able to perform even greater things which are NOT “lying wonders” in plain view of everyone (Rev 11:5-7). As witnesses they will proclaim to everyone who listens who Antichrist is and/or lead those who are willing to listen to the Truth. The way that I look at it is this — those who follow Antichrist will believe what they want to believe, many will even look for “signs and wonders” in order to believe that he is who they want him to be and will accept what Antichrist and the False Prophet tells them, even though they are fed nothing but lies and deceptions. The whole Middle Eastern world will be deceived by and large (as they already are), but there will be many who will not be.
Alan says, “I leave it up to you to explain away this text! It is does say “all kingdoms”! The text does not have “all”; and it is singular, not plural; and it has a definite article noting a particular kingdom.”
Revelation 11:15
KJV, “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.”
NKJV, Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”
NIV, The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever.”
NASB, Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become {the kingdom} of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.”
YNG, And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, `The kingdoms of the world did become [those] of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign to the ages of the ages!’
Whether it is “kingdom” or “kingdoms” we still have the same result Alan — this world (kosmos) has become God’s. I think you’re stretching to find a reason why Antichrist’s rule is global. This verse does not work for you the way that you would like Alan.
Listing a hundred English translations won’t make a difference. You have to do a textual critical analysis and it is clear that the KJV has the inferior reading. The modern translations have the singular “kingdom” since it reflects the best and earliest manuscripts.
The plural of “kingdoms” comes from a 12th century manuscript! It crept into the inferior Byzantine textual tradition.
Now you are importing another kingdom into Revelation. In the context, there is the last expression of Satan working through the Beast’s kingdom against God’s kingdom. They are at war. God’s kingdom wins. And now that I have pointed out an example of in which kosmos is connected to the Beast’s kingdom, you insert a third kingdom to avoid the ramifications for your view. That is a classroom example of: eisegesis.
I do not view it as eisegetical at all. The kingdom or kingdoms of this world (kosmos) tells me that it is referring to the earth as a whole, and it becomes God’s. Think about this. Remember when Satan tempted Christ, telling Jesus that He could have “all the kingdoms of the world” if Jesus would bow down to worship Satan?
Luke 4:5-7: The devil led him up to a high mountain and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and power, FOR IT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME, and I can give it to anyone I wish. So if you worship me, it will all be yours.”
When ever Jesus encountered liars or hypocrites did He not condemned them for being what they were? Here however Jesus did not dispute Satan’s claim to all the kingdoms of the world and call him a liar, but only rebuked Satan by telling him that only God is to be worshiped.
1 John 5:19: We know that we are of God, and the whole world (kosmos) lies under the sway of the wicked one.
Compare the following:
1 Cor 15:22-24: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s AT HIS COMING. Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom (basileia G932) to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down ALL RULE AND ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER.
Revelation 11:15 The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: “The kingdom (basileia G932) of the world (kosmos G2889) has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever.”
Luke 4:5-7: The devil led him up to a high mountain and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms (basileia G932) of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and power, FOR IT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME, and I can give it to anyone I wish. So if you worship me, it will all be yours.”
Again, Revelation 11:15 is referring to the world as a whole, not just the Beast’s kingdom, and in the end we have the same conclusion. This world (kosmos) is taken from Satan and given to God.
That will not work. You are doing everything you can to disconnect it from the context of the Beast’s Kingdom in Revelation and Christ’s defeat of that kingdom.
The text has a specific kingdom in mind, not different kingdoms. I have pointed out that it is not kingdoms (plural); it is a singular kingdom in mind, and the 800 pound gorilla-kingdom in Revelation that you want to ignore is the Beast’s kingdom. I understand why you want to ignore this salient context because it completely undermines your premise that Antichrist will not have global rule.
Not only is it fallacious to conflate the plural and the singular, but I can tell you that the definite article is highly significant indicating a particular kingdom in that context. Daniel Wallace writes in his noted grammar _Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics_, “there is no more important aspect of Greek grammar than the article to help shape our understanding of the thought and theology of the NT writers” (208).
Now you can ignore these linguistics realities, but it does not help your case at all.
Isolating a single verse? Um what do you call the context of the beast’s kingdom in Revelation? And I noticed that you did not respond to those linguistics realities, but we all know why.
Sir, your statements are most disturbing and fallacious. The fact that in your apologetics with Muslims you would intentionally undermine the Greek textual tradition is most disturbing, indeed.
Alex says:
I’m not intentionally undermining the Greek textual tradition and I don’t have to even if I wanted to, neither does any Muslim for that matter, it undermines itself. You just have to see the manuscripts - I’m telling it like is, I don’t believe in covering up information and lying to my brothers & sisters in Christ about how many Greek scribes tampered with the readings. I will expose the Greek textual tradition for what it is - warts and all. All Christians must know what these Greek mss really look like and what they really say - the unbelieving world certainly does.
Alan K:
From reading your material, you know next to nothing about the confidence we can have as Christians in the textual reliability of the Bible. I have studied formally at Harvard Divinity in specifically New Testament textual criticism, and I have written extensively on it. You sir, are completely ignorant and irresponsible by your statements.
Alex says:
Tell me what the little side note for Hebrews 1:3 in the Codex Vaticanus says. Translate it here for everyone to see!
Alan K wrote:
You wrote:
“I do a lot of apologetic work, especially inter-religious dialogue with Muslims and they love nothing more than to tell me that the Church deliberately destroyed the original words of Jesus and replaced them with what they wanted Him to say. And they have no problem digging up all the dirty secrets of the Church”
You are a Bart Ehrman clone. It is truly sad that you or your church or school has not educated you even on the most basic facts of the NT textual tradition.
Alex says:
Your credentials don’t impress me. The Greek NT textual tradition is the tradition of my people and my church, no one knows it better than we do. Even the Greek Orthodox Church admits that the Greek of the NT is unnatural.
Alan K says:
I would advise you to cease speaking with Muslims since you undermine the reliability of the text. I would direct you to one of the most noted Christian apologists today who has debated many Muslims on the textual reliability of the NT BIble. He has demolished their arguments in every debate. His name is J. White. I also blog with him at his ministry site: http://www.aomin.org/
Alex says:
Once again I never said that I’m undermining the text, I’m calling it what really is - a translation from Aramaic with many errors, most of which are honest mistranslations, after all Greek is completely different to Aramaic & Hebrew, but error is error.
And yes the Muslims do like to tell me that the Church deliberately destroyed the original words of Jesus, even they know that He spoke Aramaic. And Muslim scholars can get access to NT mss just as easily as Christian scholars, they can also see the revisions and at times deliberate tamperings with the readings.
Once I switched the Peshitta suddenly my opponents are at loss, yes they still insist that the Church corrupted the Bible but they can’t pull out a Peshitta mss and show me where, but they can do so almost any Greek mss.
Alan K wrote:
You wrote:
“Do you know how many Spirit-filled Christians abandon Christianity once they start attending seminary? Do you know that most of the translators and scholars who translate & publish the Bibles you read don’t even believe in a single word that is written in them?”
This is a bold face lie. First, if a Christian abandons Christianity when they get to seminary it is not because of the confidence in the textual material that is available to us. It is because of the like of people like yourself who undermine the text of the Bible with pet theories that mislead people, tremendously.
Alex says:
I have met and conversed with many employees from the United Bible Societies, as well as employees of publishing houses like Zondervan & Thomas Nelson. Most of the translators and scholars who work there believe in evolution, that there is no God and that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children with her.
Alan K wrote:
Also I read mostly the ESV, NET, and the NAS. These translators do in fact believe what they translated. Your statement is nothing less than defamation.
Alex says:
I said most not all, and I’m referring to scholars all over the world not just the US. Yes there are many scholars that do believe but there are many more that don’t, that is the truth.
Alan K said:
Your understanding of Greek linguistics is so convoluted.
For example you said,
“No, no, Alan K. Greek does not work like Aramaic or Hebrew it is not a Semitic language. Greek is a very specific language, even more so than English that’s why it’s the language of Science, Medicine & Mathematics. Very few Greek words have more than one meaning.”
You have to be kidding me? Most Greek words have more than one meaning.
Alex says:
Rubbish, they don’t, any professor of linguistics will tell you that. Astronomer, pathologist, pi, orthodontist, ect., ect. all these scientific, medical & mathematical terms are Greek; termonology for these subjects needs to be very precise that’s why Greek is suitable but a language like Hebrew is not, because it’s not specific enough. In some cases there are even a couple of Greek words which subdivide a concept into degrees (eg: the concept of love has 3 Greek words), you don’t know what you’re talking about!
Alan K says:
Are you even remotely familiar with any New Testament Greek lexicons. Do you have a copy of BDAG which is what _every_ NT Greek scholar uses as the most authoritative lexicon? Have you studied Greek linguistics formally? What monographs on Koine Greek have you read in the past year?
Alex says:
Alan I am a native Greek speaker, I speak this language every day, and have done so all the days of my life. I have studied modern Greek literature, the Greek Bible & ancient Greek writings both classical & contemporary, I can read all these things and understand them without a lexicon or dictionary. I don’t need a lexicon to understand my own language k? I know how the Greek language works both past & present ok, I know how all Greek words were used and how they are used today.
I am telling you that the Greek of the NT doesn’t even resemble that of ancient Alexandrian colliquial letters written to school-boys. Greek literature doesn’t feature Casus Pendens, Greeks do not say “answered and said”, Greeks do not begin all their sentences with “and”, the Greek word for strong drink is not “sikera”, the Greek word for offering is not “qurbana”, ect., ect., ect. Greeks do NOT talk this, Semites do!
The only Greek writings the Greek NT resembles are those that are translated from Semitic sources like the LXX.
Alan K says:
You said,
“And then there are the variants between the mss, and I don’t mean spelling errors or slips of the scribe’s pen, I mean where one verse reads one way in one mss and a different way in another (eg: burn/boast in 1 Cor. 13:3). Tell me where did those variants come from? Which reading is the original?”
I am very familiar with the Greek MSS tradition. As I have noted above I have studied this subject formally. How on earth you can leap from the fact that there are variants to Aramaic originals is wishful thinking.
Alex says:
Variants to Aramaic originals? PROOVE IT!!!
Alan K said:
Your next statement belies your errors:
“That is exactly what the Greek NT sounds like when you hear it being read, just like the LXX which we all know is translated from Hebrew & Aramaic, there is no difference.”
There is no grammatical differences between the LXX and the NT Greek. That is demonstrably in error in your Greek philology. Since you have no knowledge of LXX Greek or NT Greek (you must be getting your statements from obscure Internet sites). I just direct you to a standard LXX grammar, _Grammar of Septuagint Greek_. Any first year Greek student who reads the LXX and the NT Greek sees the salient syntactical differences between these two bodies of literature.
Alex says:
Any native Greek speaker from the Ph.D. professor to the lay Bible reader can see that the grammar of both is not Greek grammar - it’s foreign.
Alan K says:
You wrote:
“What about the word galkolivano in Revelation 1:15? Can you find it in any Greek literature outside the Greek Bible? I can’t and I’ll tell you why - this word doesn’t exist in the Greek language, it’s an invented word.”
Um… how is that suppose to prove that Revelation is originally Aramaic we are not told. But if you were familiar with Greek literature you would know that authors would combine words together to describe a concept that did not have a ready to use word. Paul did this in particular. I am writing a book at the moment and I already have about a dozen new words.
Alex says:
And if you were familiar with all Greek literature including extra-Biblical (i.e. you can actually read and understand without the help of a lexicon), you would know that this oddity is only present in Greek texts which are translated from Semitic sources. Paul was a native Aramaic speaker btw, he said to Jews (in Aramaic) just before he was arrested in Jerusalem that the voice which spoke to him from heaven spoke to him in Aramaic!
Alan K says:
You wrote:
“Greek words are translated from the original Aramaic Jesus spoke, which means they’re not the words that actually proceeded from his mouth”
This is not the same as a witness to what Jesus said translating it and writing it down in Greek. And further, I don’t doubt at all that there were collections of his sayings written down in Aramaic, whereby, for example, Matthew using them to write his Greek gospel.
Alex says:
Sorry but my exact words are the exact words that came out of my mouth, in whatever language I spoke them, same goes for God Almighty and His Son. And where Matthews gospel is concerned, even the Church Fathers agree that the original is Aramaic not Greek.
Jesus’ followers feared God with all their being, do you know how carefully Jews (and Assyrians) handle what they consider the word of God? They will not even touch their Bibles without washing their hands. The Apostles made dam sure that they recorded EXACTLY what they heard theri Master say - that is the Semitic mindset - they are perfectionists.
Do you know what a Masorah is? Did you know that the only textual tradition that has a Masorah besides the Hebrew Tanakh is the Peshitta NT? Now why would the Jewish and Assyrian scribes count every single word they copied from a manuscript? Because they knew that they were copying the original words in the original language. Why is this feature absent in the Greek textual traditions? Because there not point in doing this when translating into another language because the word count will never match up, especially not with languages so different as Greek & Hebrew or Aramaic because the Greek vocablury is much larger, why else do you think they had to divide the books of Samuel, Kings & Chronicles into 2 books?
Alan K says:
You wrote:
“Yes I also have BibleWorks and I also did that word search. You do know that the LXX is a translation right? You did know that there is no Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word olam didn’t you?”
Ah! the fallacy of equivocation. It is you sir, you claimed that ge could not mean entire earth. The issue was not that the LXX is a translation. You claimed that ge could not mean “entire earth,” and I documented thoroughly that the translators of the LXX clearly used that term in that sense. Now you are backtracking.
Alex says:
I’m sorry what? Yes I said that “ge” cannot mean “the whole world”, and I explained that in many of those verses (like in Genesis 1:1) “ge” was the wrong choice of word - it’s a mistranslation - an error. Find me one example in Greek literature, written by a Greek, that is NOT translated from a Semitic source which applies “ge” in a global context.
Alan K said:
You wrote:
“there is no concrete evidence that Luke was Greek or even that he was a gentile, all we know about him was that he was born in Syrian Antioch.”
Here are some facts:
Theophilus was a Greek, not Jewish, which is why he has to explain traditions and words for a Greek. Here is one example of many: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.”
Alex says:
Oh so you assume that all gentiles were Greeks? What about Acts 2:9-11 (also written by Luke), it says Jews and proselytes, i.e. gentile converts to Judaism - many languages were represented not just Greek.
And btw just because someone had a Greek name it doesn’t mean they were Greek. Andrew and Philip are Greek names and they weren’t Greeks, plenty of modern Assyrians, Russians, Georgians & Armenians have Greek names but they are not Greek and cannot speak Greek.
Alan K said:
Jesus lived and grew up in a multilingual culture. It is very likely that he worked in a Greek city in Galilee and would have learned Greek as well as his Aramaic.
Alex says:
Umm…I woudn’t call 1st century Israel multicultural, this is not supported by either the Talmud or NT. Peter was scoffed at when we visited Cornelius, socializing with “uncirmcumcised gentiles” was severely frowned upon, and the Pharisees expanded on this in the Talmud.
As for the argument that Jesus and His disciples “had to know Greek” in order to “trade”, is just plain ridiculous. Go to any small Middle Eastern town or village and what the chances that the local carpenter or fisherman, who probably didn’t even go to highscholl can speak anything other than Arabic/Kurdish/Farsi/Turkish? I bet you’ll immediately whip out your phrasebook and start making hand gestures because he didn’t understand the English question you just asked him! Carpentary and fishing were meanial jobs back then and illeteracy was much more widespread than it is today.
This is the thing about popular western scholarship, there’s all this careful wording and lots of “maybe”, “probably” and “presumably”, but as soon as I ask for actual evidence that I can see with my own eyes, all I ever get is some reference to some other scholar’s opinion, which only means more careful wording (in an attempt to hide the lack of evidence), “maybe”, “probably” and “presumably” - a lot of assumptions not facts.
Alan K said:
There is evidence that Luke was Greek. Further, Luke’s Greek is in the high literary and rhetorician of Greek, not Aramaic.
Alex says;
Like what? High literacy? *Chuckles*, Luke’s Greek writings can’t even compete with those of Josephus, nevermind Aristotle or Plato.
Alan K said:
The book of the Revelation is written to seven churches in Asia. All the seven churches were in Greek cities. John was exiled on a Greek island. He wrote to people who were Greek. There is no reason why he would have written it in any other language.
Alex says:
If you read very carefully all those letters are addressed to the “messengers” or “angels” of those churches. In the synagogue, the leader who spoke prayers and led the worship was called the “angel” or “messenger of the assembly”, and sometimes also called the “speaker,” (see Kitto, vol II, p. 806, Burder, p. 387, Moseley, p.9). That is what the 1st churches were - synagogues, assemblies of mostly Jewish believers (too many examples in Acts). While not all the synagogue attendents were Aramaic speakers, the leaders (most were either from Israel or educated in Jerusalem) were fluent in both Hebrew & Aramaic just as they are today. The Scriptures were chanted in the original languages and then verbally interpreted for the people in the language/languages they spoke. There was no reason for John (or any other NT author) to translate their Gospel/Epistle themselves as they were writing to an individual (a church leader) who could understand their language.
As for the fact that Patmos was a Greek island, so what?
Alan K says:
Paul grew up in a Greek city and would have been fluent in Greek, which is why one of the reasons God sent him to the Greek world to spread the gospel.
Alex says:
Actually Paul grew up in Jerusalem not Tarsus, he says so himself:
Acts 22:3 “I am a Jewish man and I was born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but I was educated in this city beside the feet of Gamaliel and was instructed perfectly in the law of our fathers. And I was zealous of God, even as also all of you are.
Rabbinical Jews began their education under the age of 12, Paul actually spent little of his childhood in Tarsus and most of it and his early adulthood in Jerusalem. And while the NT says that Paul could speak Greek that does not necessarily mean that he could write it, learning to speak a language is one thing, learning it’s literature is an entirely different matter and Greek is nothing like Aramaic. Ever since the incident with Antiochus Ephiphanes most Palestinian Jews wanted nothing to do with anything Greek, especially the Pharisees (again refer to the Talmud). The Pharisees didn’t go out of their way either learn or teach Greek or even speak it, they would only do so if they felt they absolutely had to. And Josephus writings confirm this too.
Alan k said:
His letters were sent to Greek speaking Churches and individuals.
Alex says:
I already answered this one above.
Alan K said:
Timothy’s father was a Greek and he grew up in a Greek speaking region. Paul even asked him to stay with Greek speaking believers.
Alex says:
No, Timothy’s father was an Aramean:
Acts 16:1 And he arrived at the city [of] Derbe and of Lystra. And there was a certain disciple there, whose name [was] Timothy, the son of a certain faithful Judean woman and his father was an Aramean. (Peshitta)
And before you protest and say that this statement in the Peshitta is false, watch this:
1 Timoth 3:16 (Peshitta):
w’sherirayt rab (and truly great)
haw arza hela d’kanota (is this divine mystery of righteousness)
d’atgli b’besra (it is revealed in the flesh)
w’atzaddaq b’rokh (justified in the Spirit)
w’atkhazi l’malaka (seen by angels)
w’atkeraz beyt amah (preached to the gentiles)
w’athaymin b’almah (believed on in the world)
w’astalaq b’shubkha (and received up into glory)
As you can see it’s a poem, and the meaning of this poem is just amazing, from Ruach Qadim by Andrew Gabriel Roth:
QUOTE
To begin with, two words for “righteousness” are used, one in the last word of line 2 (kanota) and the other in the first word of line 4 (atzaddaq). Kanota is clearly reminiscent of kahna (preast), even though their roots are slightly different (kan / kahn). Futhermore, the last word of line 1 is rab (great/high), and so the way the text lines up is: rab kanota/kahna (high priest)! The other word for “righteousness”, atzaddaq, is also deliberately placed in the same manner, since right below it is the word malaka. Now, in this case malaka means “angel, messenger”, however, it also is spelled and pronounced almost indentically as malak (king). Reverse the words and what we get is:
Malak + Atzaddaq = Melchisedec
a deep poetic pattern contrasting the Levitical rab kahna (high priest) with Melchisedec, whose priestly line Messiah is supposed to represent!
Between these placements is a toggle phrase, Atgli b’besra (revealed in the flesh). Not only does the word gali mean “reveal”, but it is also a homonym for Galilee, where Messiah was “revealed in the flesh”!
The poetic patterns continue with some clever rhymes. First, there are four lines in a row that end in “ah”: l’malaka - amah - b’almah - b’shubkha. Other word matches are equally striking:
(seen) Atkhazi Atkeraz (preached)
(house of peoples) Beyt ammah B’almah (in the earth/land)
The last pair is particularly noteworthy, because of this prophecy:
I am going to take the Israelite people (ammah) from among the nations (goyim/gentiles) they have gone to, and gather them from every quarter, and bring them back to their own land (almah). I will make them a single nation (goy) in the land (almah). Ezekiel 37:21-22
Now granted, there are some dialectical differences between the Tanakh and the Aramaic Peshitta (ammah = am; almah = eretz), but these are still, for all intents and purposes, the exact same words and concepts. Finally, the last four lines also flow together in an almost melodic fashion, as even a rudimentary attempt to sound them out reveals.
In the end then, we see an amazing composition in two parts.
The first half shows us that Paul is very capable of packing a great deal of Jewish symbolism and hidden meanings in a handful or words. Once this significant feat is accomplished, then Paul moves on to delivering a masterpiece of rhyme, diction and meter for the remainder of the verse.
END QUOTE
There’s no way that Timothy could’ve understood this unless he was a native Aramaic speaker. Now please tell me how the hell that poem can posssibly be a translation from Greek??? The Greek version is pure prose, and not a hint of hidden imagery like the Aramaic version - you’d never suspect that 1 Timothy 3:16 is a poem in the Greek version.
Alan K said:
This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it proves sufficient that your claims are ludricous and without any support. It may work on your benighted audience, but not on those who understand these matters.
Alan
Alex says:
And I have refuted all your points above, now answer the questions I asked you above.
“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18 ESV).
John warns that Antichrist is coming.
“and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world [kosmos] already.” (1 John 4:3 ESV).
Here John notes that the precursor to the coming of Antichrist is the spirit of the Antichrist. We are told that the spirit of Antichrist already has a reaching kosmos. The Greek uses the terms nyn (now) and ēdē (already) stressing his presence now, which is significant because it is indicating that a future Antichrist will have kosmos affect, but his effect is “now…already” kosmos.
I.e., Someone does not have to wait to see the Antichrist in the kosmos, his spirit is already in the kosmos.
If someone argues that Antichrist’s future presence will not be kosmos, then they are ignoring John’s combination and stress of these two words to indicate that Antichrist influence is already kosmos.
You are the proverbial person in which a little knowledge of Greek is dangerous. Or in your case, a little bit of Church History. I maintain that you are misleading God’s people by twisting historical and textual facts.
I have interacted voluminously in the past with folks as yourself who are bamboozled into the myth of original Aramaic originals. Thanks for your time.
p.s. If you want a superior language program, use Accordance, not BibleWorks.
Hi Alan, Revelation 11:15 is in the context of the eschaton and should immediately bring to mind 1 Cor. 15:22-24. Do you agree with that? What kingdom specifically is put to an end at the coming of Christ? The kingdom of Antichrist, sure, but there is a larger picture in view here. To assert that Rev 11:15 is only speaking of Antichrist’s kingdom is not what I believe the text to be referring to. See Matthew 12:26. The kingdom of this world (Satan’s) will become the kingdom of our Lord.
As for the “linguistics realities”, I do not see the issues that you contend, and I don’t believe that it is particularly beneficial to the discussion to accuse folks here of being “convoluted”, “fallacious”, “uneducated”, “ignorant”, or “playing fast and loose with Scripture”, etc. If anything, it is only turning people off to your position all together. I say that from one brother to another.
I have to chime in her as well Alan. I’ve only been able to catch snippets of all that has been discussed here over the past few weeks. But while you seemed to begin with some measure of potential here in terms of adding to the discussion, you have quickly allowed your words to devolve into elitism, condescension and downright arrogance. I was actually hopeful with regard to your forthcoming book, but at this point, your character has soured any interest I may have had. I’m sorry that you chose this approach. Name-calling and arrogance never wins anyone and certainly does nothing for the forthcoming Kingdom that you claim to know so much about.
Ever since this discussion began with trying to explain ge by going outside of the context of Revelation and now trying to explain away the defeat of the beast’s kingdom by appealing to other texts, it demonstrates the lack of support.
Of course you do not want to see the “linguistic realities” since someone who has a theory to defend they will not want to see these linguistic facts and thus run away as quickly as possible to irrelevant texts to obfuscate the context.
By trying to pit another kingdom of the world against the climatic kingdom of the Satan-inspired kingdom is indicative of eisegesis. In my next post, I will be providing yet another example of connecting the kosmos to the Satan-inspired Beast kingdom.
If I believe a particular line of reasoning is convoluted then stating it and providing reasons for it is fine. I don’t just see your interpretation as little off, your entire hermeneutics is fundamentally flawed; hence the reason why you are filtering all these texts from a erroneous premise.
And it is indeed playing fast and loose with Scripture. Rodrigo says that folks like myself who believe that ge can have a global sense are “picking and choosing.” Where in reality it is he who was selectively picking and choosing, apparently thinking that his readers were not going to check out his claims. And that is not an isolated incident, he did this more than once, so it cannot be considered an “honest oversight.” I’d figured he would be eager to clear the air with his reasons for selectively, but I overestimated him.
I agree with Mitchell, and Joel that the AC will never rule the entire globe, in his book “Antichrist: Prince from Iraq” Russell Noel Redden gives this reason:
QUOTE
Consider the stubbornness and arrogance of mankind. Consider�ow we all fight over our own opinions. It is fantasy that Christians,�uslims, Buddhists, Animists, and people from every religion on the�ace of the earth will somehow discard�housands�of years of�tradition and follow after one man who claims to be God. It is not�ogical that the�ajority of people from different ethnic backgrounds�ill follow after someone who is not part of their own culture.�oreover, some religions do not even believe in a�ersonal God, but� “force.” Suddenly, are they going to discard their beliefs and follow�fter someone who�ersonally claims to be god?
END QUOTE
God is not going give the honor of ruling His creation to anyone but His Son. No one but Jesus will ever establish a “global kingdom”. The reason why there are so many different languages & cultures is precisely to prevent mankind from uniting under any man but Messiah.
Satan cannot please everyone at once that’s why he’s manufactured so many different cults - because there are so many different tastes. Satan is a creature, he is not all power and he hasn’t been able to unite mankind under one cult in the last 6000 years so it’s fantasy to assume that he’ll be able to accomplish this in just 7 years. His only option is to back his “wining horse” and we all know which cult that is.
Your tremendous prejudice is apparent here. What is dishonoring to the Lord? Is it stating that a line of reasoning is fallacious; or playing quick and loose with Scripture?
What is dishonoring to the Lord? Stating that I have a “pick and choose” approach where in fact I have documented that it was the other way around?
What is souring Joel is the fact that individuals can call themselves believers and undermine the very Biblical text that we have by invoking the myth “Aramaic originals”; and others who are so prideful that they cannot admit correction on documented facts. That is not kingdom-like ethics.
Calling out bad argumentation, especially repeated errors as fallacious will only offend the guilty.
I find it odd that Joel allows you to post here Alex. I don’t think he realizes how pernicious your beliefs are to the Christian faith and its foundation of the Biblical text.
Attacking the textual integrity of the Biblical text is permissible for Joel; but heaven forbid that I point out bad argumentation. Good grief.
Here is a post on whether Antichrist’s rule will be regional or global, and you are peddling your Aramaic-original myth by citing a variant that is so completely irreverent to the textual integrity of Hebrews.
It is indicative of the utter lack of discernment here. Truly sad.
Ok Alan since you won’t translate it I guess I’ll have to:
αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφε τον παλαιον μς μεταποιει
And this is what it means:
FOOL AND NAVE, CAN’T YOU LEAVE THE OLD READING ALONE AND NOT ALTER IT
This is not a variant Alan, it’s scribal note on the side of the page containing the 1st chapter. This is clearly a rebuke by the editor to the copyist for deliberately changing the reading which is a SIN.
No this doesn’t call the integrity of Hebrews into question but it does call the integrity of the Codex Vaticanus into question.
You and the rest of the scholarship world tell us that these early Alexandrian mss are “superior” but when we actually take a look at them this is what we find - admissions of deliberate alterations. I think of the story of how the other “most prized” mss Codex Sinaiticus was found in a trash can and the monastery was planning to use it as fuel for a fire. Now why would they treat it like junk unless they thought it was junk???
What I am doing is not dangerous, what you and most other scholars are doing is - passing off garbage as the most accurate witness to the Apostolic writings and hiding these dirty little secrets from the rest of us. Why don’t you tell us the truth - what these mss really say? We have the right to know!
And isn’t it a wonder that Egypt (where these mss come from) was the birth place of gnosticism and monophytisim? These mss weren’t copied over and over because they were REJECTED. How can I put my faith in a text that was rejected by a church? If it’s not good enough for them then it’s not good enough for me either.
This is how I determine which mss tradition is best reflects the original: If the church treated it like Word of God with fear and reverence, not like a piece of junk.
You said; “It may work on your benighted audience, but not on those who understand these matters.”
Hmmmm. “Benighted”? To the contrary, I have found most posters on this site to be in a pursuit of the truth, wherever it happens to be found. While many here may not have studied Divinity as you have, that gives you no license to insult them. And just so we all understand the level of insult you have heaped upon this forum, I offer the following;
Be-night-ed – adjective
1. Intellectually or morally ignorant; unenlightened: benighted ages of barbarism and superstition.
2. Over taken by darkness or night.
Synonyms:
1. backward, primitive, crude, uncultivated.
Alan, for the most part I enjoyed your scholarship and your contribution to this thread, and as a result there are additional items within this debate that I intend to pursue with further study. But Alex and Mitchell have also made some very good points, which I also intend to pursue. I imagine that many others who review this forum daily are doing the same, because we/they have done so on virtually ever other topic that has come down the pipe.
That doesn’t sound like a benighted audience to me.
I was responding to Alex who posted a protracted comment about how the Greek text is not reliable with him positing the pernicious myth of Aramaic originals.
I did not respond to his first comments in this thread. Then I noticed no one was responding to his claims.
It is in that context that I said this comment. And Alex knows it himself that his audience is not trained in New Testament textual criticism (”benighted”). And I saw him taking advantage of readers here by his false claims about the Biblical text.
So what is so ironic is that I decided to jump in and begin to defend the integrity of your Bible since he was obviously taking advantage of the lack of knowledge on this subject that some have here.
But since you cannot appreciate that I was calling him on his assertions, then take over because…
I’m sure that many of us in our “utter lack of discernment” would still like to hear your thoughts regarding the Greek contained in the Revelation. I think you have proven that your scholarship and your perspective is well-rooted.
Alan said, “Ever since this discussion began with trying to explain ge by going outside of the context of Revelation and now trying to explain away the defeat of the beast’s kingdom by appealing to other texts, it demonstrates the lack of support.”
Mitchell: Hi Alan, not only is the context of Revelation important when studying the kingdom of the Beast, so is every verse in Scripture that speaks of him and his kingdom. If we wish to gain the most accurate picture possible, is it not more wise to refer to the whole of Scripture rather than limit our understanding to just a few passages of text from Revelation?
2 Tim 3:16, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
Isa 28:10, “For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little.”
Acts 17:11, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
Failure to understand this and we run into the risk of making the Word of God say something that it does not intend to say.
Alan, “Of course you do not want to see the “linguistic realities” since someone who has a theory to defend they will not want to see these linguistic facts and thus run away as quickly as possible to irrelevant texts to obfuscate the context.”
Mitchell: I was at one time among those who believed that the Antichrist would rule the entire globe and every single person in it would be under his thumb (or die if they resisted) because that is what I was taught and assumed it to be true without question. It was in fact required for the pre-trib position that I was taught as well. So it gets repeated, retaught, rehashed, regurgitated and becomes one continuous cycle without being challenged. “If so and so teaches it, then it must be true, so I’ll believe it and teach it too…” seems to be a never-ending cycle. The more I read from Scripture however the more questions I began asking which challenged such presuppositions. I am thankful that folks like Joel and even Rodrigo and others such as “Brother Tommie” (http://www.americaisraelprophecy.com/notallnations.html) have taken the time to look into all Scriptures and flesh-out the most accurate picture that the Bible gives us, instead of repeating the “status-quo” pop-theology eschatology of Tim Lahey, Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey.
Alan, “By trying to pit another kingdom of the world against the climatic kingdom of the Satan-inspired kingdom is indicative of eisegesis.”
Mitchell: Perhaps you can explain what 1 Cor. 15:22-24 is referring to and why you believe it is unrelated to Revelation 11:15? Also, I would like to know if you view Romans 10:18 as referring to the literal planet?
For what it is worth, while I have not appreciated Alan’s approach toward those with whom he disagrees as I expressed, I am in full agreement with him with regard to the notion that the entire New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. The implications of whole Aramaic Primacy Theory as it is often referred to are IMO entirely destructive to the foundations of our faith. In brief, to claim that the whole of the NT was written in Aramaic is to essentially claim that we lost the NT and at best today possess a corrupted version. That said, the forum is largely unmoderated and rarely do I ban anyone, though occasionally I have to. Lately, I have barely been able to read 1/10 of the posts. So regarding Aramaic Primacy, there’s not tons of info about this online, but one fellow that seems to have put the time in found here:
I just want to publicly apologize for my tone on this thread to Mitchell and others. Joel, you are correct, I should not have been uncharitable. We can be pointed at times when it is called for, but looking back at my comments, there were instances that I crossed the line.
I have exhausted my discussion on this subject here.
Since I am not a full time theologian but rather a regular Joe who has to work 12 hours a day sometimes 7 days a week as a mere landscaper to bring a couple of hundred dollars home to feed my family, I do not have time to be reading blogs and be posting comments. As I took some time to read this today, I realized how much damage this article has done and I wish I had never written it. I apologise for my mistake in not giving the full definition of the word ge from the Strong’s which also included ‘’world.'’ That was a mistake on my part and I already added it to the article. I ask those of you to forgive me for this stupidity on my part.
I may be deleting the article from the web site due to the fact that this article has caused a lot of damage as brothers and sisters in the Lord deeply hurt each other trying to prove their point. It appears that we Christians tend to elevate ‘’Biblical exegesis'’ above AGAPE LOVE and that is too bad. We are not dealing with heresey here such as denying the deity of Christ and his work on the cross to pay for our salvation but with alternate views on eschatological matters. We are never going to fully agree on everything as far as prophecy in concerned and that is Ok. If this was an easy matter there would not be so much disagreement even among those so called scholars which I am millions of years away from becoming one. We are just a bunch of fallen human beings trying to understand what God has not fully revealed and we will only know in part until that which is perfect comes (1 Corinthians 13:9-10). It will take the Lord himself to teach us everything correctly, not human beings with degrees given by mere human institutions.
I hope we can all forgive each other for our mistakes and love one another as the Lord has taught us. If we know all mysteries of prophecy and have not love, we are nothing (1 Corinthians 13)
I will leave the article posted for a few more days so you can all see that I corrected the definition for the Greek word ge and then I will delete it. As I said, I wish I had never written this article because of all the damage it caused. By the way, we should not really care whether the Antichrist’s rule will be global or regional. Be that as it may, we are all going to win with Christ in the end and Satan and his Antichrist will lose and that is what really matters.
I have done the same myself on plenty of occasions. Passion is good. Passion for truth is essential. And while I do not need to say it, I doubt that we would have ever found Jesus putting someone down for not being as theologically astute or educated as he. In any case, your willingness to acknowledge and apologise says a lot. Thanks bro. Genuinely. As for the Pre-Wrath Post-Trib issue, I am myself still wrestiling through some of these issues. Make sure to give me a reminder when your book is released. I apologise if my rebuke was too harsh. I really yearn for ongoing intelligent discussion to take place here and I hope that you stick around. Blessings, Joel
I say correct it, make note of the corrections and leave it up. We all make mistakes, myself at the top of the list. Particularly those of us who work full time jobs, while trying to write, teach and contribute while raising a family, etc etc etc.
I appreciate your charitable comment. Your humility is humbling. I apologize for being so pointed toward you.
In accordance to modifying your article, I will delete your name reference from my article and change it to a general article responding to this subject. You don’t have to delete your article. You can still argue for a regional position but recognize that those terms can frequently have a global sense in its range.
Don’t worry about it. I undertand your zeal to be faithful to what you believe to be true because I am the same way. I guess we all are.
By the way I learned much from you and Alex also. I can read neither Greek nor Aramaic and even my English is horrible since Portuguese is my first language, therefore it is irrelavant to me personally whether the New Testament was writen in Greek or Aramaic.
Feel free to contact me via e-mail. Perhaps we can share some ideas over the phone sometime. I am always willing to learn from those who know more than me.
Joel, I will think about leavning the article up. I felt very sad today because of what this article caused. It reminded me of the Roman/Middle Eastern beast debate of a few months ago of which I wish I had never gotten involved with. That still bothers me to this day. My wife told me not to get involved in it but I did not listen to her. Oh, how stupid I am sometimes! Or most of the time!
Brothers, thank the Lord that this has turned around. I was really feeling like I made a terrible mistake in posting the link to the Prewrath Institute, and alerting Alan about this thread. As I followed along, bouncing back and forth between complete amazement and depression, I began to loose respect for those posting, and this blog. However seeing how it has turned around, and how the Holy Spirit has worked in the hearts of the men posting here, I now have a greater respect, for all of you. Thank you gentlemen for your intellect, but more for your humility. God bless you all, and may we all continue to grow in our understanding of our Lord, until He returns, whenever that me be.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:54 pm
You spoke on this as well in your Islam & The End Times Part II DVD (great series by the way!). It is a significant point that many fail to understand because of what we’ve been taught in Church for so many years, or see in “End Times” movies such as the Left Behind series. I think that many teachers fail to recognize the use of figures of speech such as synecdoche that the Bible often uses, but the more we begin to read Scripture in light of the whole of Scripture instead of reading all verses regarding Antichrist in a wooden literal sense, the more we begin to realize that the text is not speaking of a world-wide ruler over literally every soul on the planet. Kind of hard to be a world leader if you’re constantly fighting wars with other nations…
June 1st, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I agree Mitchell. I enjoy reading the analysis of those that take the time to analyze the original Greek, Hebrew, or Arabic. Rodrigo has done well here. The original language almost always provides additional insight into our understanding, since many words do not translate easily, or well. I have found that this ‘dictionary’ approach tends to be the most persuasive in discussions about almost any controversial topic.
Good job Rodrigo.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:10 pm
spot on! this is one of my previous posts:
I am of the belief that the Empire of the AC is not a NWO per se, it is not global, although will have a global influence; Revelation speaks of 1/3 of the trees, 1/3 of grass, etc. being destroyed, darkness upon 1/3 of the world; Muslim countries make up about 1/3 of the Earth
in Hebrew, the word “every” and “all” don’t always mean every single thing like in English, but are dependent on context; like when God told Noah I gave you every creature to eat, but before He differentiated between clean and unclean creatures or in Daniel when Alexander the Great, the he-goat conquers the whole world, clearly it was not the entire globe, and many similar examples in Scripture
Revelation is in Greek, but many think that even the NT was originally written in Hebrew and afterwards translated into Greek; either way, John had a Hebrew mindset
the biggest concentration of Christians and Jews I think is in America; America is Israel’s one and only partner, ally and friend, even with Obama, so I don’t see America as being destroyed like the America-Babylon camp thinks, but judged? absolutely!
God has been using America as the world’s police dog for a while now and I think after He judges us, He will continue to do so; the Scriptures say that the AC fights the mightiest of nations, IMO those are America and Europe, so clearly they are not part of AC’s kingdom and I don’t see them annihilated by AC; also the Bible says that God will assemble His army of holy ones who delight in His glory from far away lands, from the ends of the heavens, clearly an army of people, I only see America as qualifying after He judges us and we become more holy
Hitler wanted to conquer and rule the whole world, but it didn’t happen, he was stopped, his 3rd Reich had a global influence, but was NOT global; same with AC; and remember that the power of AC comes from 10 kings and in the end from Satan himself, so things IMO will happen almost over night
in the end, the Bible teaches that Jesus’ Kingdom will cover the entire Earth, clearly the context is global, not the same with AC’s kingdom
June 1st, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Once I really started paying attention to Biblical prophecy, I quit thinking the AC would reign globally.
For one, we read about Nebuchadnezzar who the Bible states ruled the world, all its people and animals; however, I doubt anyone in the Americas at the time ever heard of him.
Also, there are mentions of resistance to the AC from far off places.
Also, AD/DC.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:39 pm
ok so question.
I too agree that it is more regional than global. But i wonder then what effect the ac’s rule will have on the rest of the world?
and considering obama’s role and empathy’s with the muslims, what role does the west play? would we be part of chittum?
thoughts?
June 1st, 2009 at 9:44 pm
This brings up a question to my mind: all of the oil is there in the middle east. If they get themselves entangled in wars, etc… won’t that concern the US, Russia, China, and everyone else in the world that is so dependent on the black gold?
Unless we wean ourselves from oil completely, I don’t see how what happens in the Middle East won’t completely engross the whole world.
I understand this to mean that if the AC is going to have a fighting chance, he’d have to have control of all of these powerful nations.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:29 am
I think it is clear that the AC’s empire will be regional rather than global although he will attempt to expand his power and influence throughout the entire Earth. Oil will certainly be a major issue for the entire world as the world deals with the consequences of an unified Islamic Caliphate. But all in all the Global AC paradigm never made sense to me because the nations of the world have too many competing interests for the leaders of all the nations to bow to the authority of one man.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:26 am
What influence the regional, but still large and powerful, beast-empire will have on the rest of the world is intriguing, especially here since most of the readers of this blog, including me, live in this “rest”.
I think it can be extrapolated from the present influence of the countries that exist now which together will form the beast empire. Essentially the same, only more severe.
1. It will suck away the money and wealth of the rest through money and goods in exchange for expensive oil and natural gas.
2. It will neutralize some countries such as Russia and China through agreements about exchange of oil and natural gas. They may not actually become close friends, but support the beast-empire to some extent as long as it suits them. And each of them probably will not dislike it if the beast empire should turn against the western world. Something like “Well, if the West and the Islamic Empire wound and cripple each other in war, then that will leave us as sole superpower…” USA-disliking countries like Venezuela can also be counted among these.
3. It will promote the growth of Islam in the rest of the world, with money and economical pressure. For instance, if you do not help building mosques and Islam schools, and do not allow sharia in areas/towns/cities with a muslim majority, then you will get less or no oil, and we will no longer invest our money in your economy.
4. If this helps not enough, it will promote, support and organize terror strikes against anyone who opposes the Islamic empire and its growing influence. This will cause widespread fear, and stockholm-syndrome like pressure from the population to appease it by obedience.
I wonder what the politics of the large country and nuclear power India will be. Will they become like Russia and China? I doubt it. They will absolutely not like the rise of a new Islamic Empire, remembering the invasion of the old Islamic Empire in their country. But then, they still have a large muslim minority.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:27 am
OK I’m getting more convinced of this regional approach to the global. But can anyone answer why our Bible translators from the last few centuries have got the Greek so completely wrong when it seems any part time student of the scriptures can get it right?
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:17 am
@Stuart
I am not a translation expert, but I do know that when there are multiple possibillities for translation of a word, then you should look at the word in it’s immediate context. If this does not help, you should look in the wider context.
But be it immidiate or wide, at this stage there is always intepretation involved. Which is always influenced by the presuppositions, opinions and theologies of the translators.
In case of a bible translation, it is often a committiee which has to decide between the different opinions of translators, linguists and proofreaders.
No translation is or can ever be perfect.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:22 am
The way that I word it is that we know what the head of the spear of the AC ’s empire will be: The ME. Beyond this, (the shaft of the spear) we do not know yet.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:54 am
Stuart,
I know what you’re saying here, that it sounds like a revisionist notion, and we have to be careful here. But I think many of our translations necessarily contain a certain amount of bias, since translators must attempt to determine what the author was trying to say in order to form the proper context of a given word.
One example I can think of is the “ships of Kittim” in Daniel that I’ve mentioned here recently. The ESV properly identifies “Kittim”, while the NIV uses “western coastlands”. The NIV interpreters felt this prophecy was fulfilled in the 2nd century B.C. when Roman ships turned Epiphanes away from Egypt. But the ESV interpreters did not apply that bias, and merely let the text say what it said.
So there you go. Two widely variant opinions, with one interpretation saying these ships will come from Cypress, and another saying from Rome.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
Even though the AC will probably not rule America or the Western nations directly, he likely will influence us through his manipulation of oil markets. We can already see this affect in the world today, where western policies have been altered to assure the continued flow of oil. When the AC appears, no doubt this will be magnified tenfold.
Perhaps this will force us to finally do what we should have done decades ago, and that is, develop our own reserves. Our elected leaders have created many of our economic woes by implementing punitive policies that curtailed domestic production. All those trillions we have sent overseas could have remained within our own borders, creating great wealth domestically.
Ross Perot thought NAFTA was a ‘giant sucking sound’, but frankly, OPEC puts NAFTA to shame in this regard.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 am
I understand that translation is not inspired, and I also know that ancient words can have more than one meaning. But in this guy’s article the translations he gave for the various Greek words were so clear as to not be speaking of global referents that I just don’t know how translators in the past ever translated them as such.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Stuart,
I agree that the greek words are clear. As for the translators biases or mistranslations i am reminded of what it says in Daniel 12 about how when the end times come the wise will understand and teach many.
I believe that is what is happening today. the wise who seek only God’s truth and understanding are able to interpret properly because we want only what God has for us not what others think we should have.
I believe the books are opened and as Jesus said, You shall know truth and the truth will set you free. And also he said, The Comforter will come to us and teach us ALL things. I believe that with all my heart if we stay true.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3615/3572584999_60d24580c1_b.jpg
still the best (or rather WORST) possible map…..
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
So Paolo, you think this is the worst-case-scenerio for the directo control of AC? I’d say that is at least 20% of the world…maybe more. Yikes!
This is where most of the world’s energy comes from…if AC controls oil…well, the rest of the industrial nations are dancing his tune, wouldn’t ya say?
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Hi everyone. Great discussion, especially concerning the importance of Biblical linguistics in regard to interpretation…
Laurence said:
“Revelation is in Greek, but many think that even the NT was originally written in Hebrew and afterwards translated into Greek; either way, John had a Hebrew mindset.”
Alex says:
May I suggest that the “missing link” so to speak is the native language of the NT writers, which was…Aramaic (Hebrew was a liturgical language back then, not a spoken language).
It is imperative to include the Aramaic language for comparison with the Greek, because even if the NT authors really did pen their writings in Greek (which I don’t believe), they still thought and more importantly conversed with God in Aramaic. Think of it this way, when you pray to God you do so in your native language, even if you are fluent in another. Likewise if God had speak to you audibly, would He not do so in your native language rather than your second language? I guess what I’m trying to say is, although the oldest NT mss are in Greek, the truth is the “God-breathed” original is Aramaic - that is why we need to look at the Aramaic NT mss (like the Peshitta) as well, Aramaic is more important than Greek.
Staurt Wall said:
“OK I’m getting more convinced of this regional approach to the global. But can anyone answer why our Bible translators from the last few centuries have got the Greek so completely wrong when it seems any part time student of the scriptures can get it right?”
Staurt Wall said:
“I understand that translation is not inspired, and I also know that ancient words can have more than one meaning. But in this guy’s article the translations he gave for the various Greek words were so clear as to not be speaking of global referents that I just don’t know how translators in the past ever translated them as such.”
Alex says:
The Revelation that we know (i.e. the Greek version) is the earliest translation of the original Aramaic which John penned, which it seems hasn’t survived. As a native Greek speaker who’s well versed in the Greek Bible, I can say that there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that Greek is the original language of that book.
The Greek of Revelation is absolutely horendous, arguably the worst Greek ever written in Greek literature (the Gospel of Mark is almost as bad), it is unthinkable that Almighty God & His Son would audibly speak to John in grammar so bad it would make even the most uneducated Greek cringe, nevermind Aristotle or Plato.
The Greek translation of John’s original is both good and bad - good in the sense that it’s extremely literal, so a near perfect reconstruction of what the original said is possible; but bad in the sense that it’s too literal and is therefore unpleasant to the ear and the symbolism is layered & difficult to interpret - I highly doubt that John intended his composition to be as confusing as it now is.
It’s not impossible to understand Revelation, but understanding it requires effort to unravel the symbolism which is quite heavily stacked - if you don’t consult the Aramaic language you’re not going to get very far.
Since we have yet to uncover Aramaic autographs of Revelation (doesn’t mean we never will, remember the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered less than 100 years ago), we unfortunately cannot compare the Greek version we have with an untranslated Aramaic version. While the 2 extisting Aramaic versions (Crawford & Harklean) are translations of the Greek translation, they nevertheless do offer some very important insights, so they are not a complete loss.
Otherwise comparing the Aramaic of Daniel with the LXX translation, Peshitta OT & Targums is helpful. For example:
Rodrigo Silver said in his article:
The fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7, is the same kingdom of Revelation 13, namely that of the beast. Concerning the fourth kingdom we read:
‘’Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth. . . ‘’ (Daniel 7:23)
Here we read that the fourth beast which is the kingdom of the Antichrist will devour the whole earth. This seems the be a universal or global kingdom. The Aramaic phrase here translated is the phrase כל ארע kol ara. The same phrase appear in Daniel 2 where we read:
‘’And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth [kol ara].'’ (Daniel 2:39)
The third kingdom of brass which would bear rule over ‘’ALL THE EARTH'’ is the Grecian Empire of Alexander the Great. A map of the Grecian Empire will reveal that it DID NOT rule the whole world but only extended from Macedon in the West to the Indus River which is the border between India and Pakistan.”
Alex says:
The key Aramaic phrase here “kol ara”, is translated by the LXX as “pasys tys gys”, i.e. “all the region”, there is that Greek word “ge” from Strong’s, not “kosmos” which Rodrigo did a great job in pointing out the difference. Just goes to show how accurate and unbiased the ancient translations of the original languages are.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Alex,
very cool!
Ok so if this is a regional kingdom is there hope that the US might find her soul again and be in support of Israel and helping those who hide from the dragon?
Thinking about the 1290 days she is nurtured. I understand that the area of petra is it? where there is a hiding place but i wonder if there will be various hiding places?
sorry for being all over the place but the idea of regional really makes things clearer methinks.
blessings
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Thanks Alex.
I trust that as a Greek speaker you will continue to add insights into these translation discussions. I would love to hear about the specific areas in the Revelation where you feel the Greek may misrepresent the original transcript. I know this would require some speculation on your part, but this is just an exchange of ideas. So, if you would entertain that, I would listen.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Laura,
Will the U.S find her soul again? Hmmm. Tough question. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. We are definitely lost in the wilderness just now.
Many have speculated that Petra will be the place prepared by God for those that will “flee to the mountains” after the abomination. It follows that this may be why Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be saved from the AC’s hand at that time. But I think there will be other ‘hiding places’ as well for Jews in the last days, since several prophets wrote of Israelites being delivered to Israel by nations from all parts of the world at the beginning of the Millennium.
All of this makes sense if the AC’s rule was only regional.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:19 pm
As much as I think the AC’s rule will be regional, we can’t forget Islams global aspirations. The AC may not have absolute control over the entire planet, but imagine the chaos here in the US and other Western countries far off from the ME when the Muslim Messiah appears.
If we think Muslims are bold now, wait until they think their Mahdi is supporting them.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Water,
No doubt. It’s ironic that in the end, he will burn them as well.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Hi evryone,
I am happy that this article was well received.
Alex, I was very intrigued by your comment about Revelation being written in Aramaic and that you are well versed in the Greek Bible. If possible, please get in touch with me through my e-mail address on the web site. I would like to talk to you about some Greek words for a book I am trying to write.
Blessings,
Rodrigo
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
MIke,
i too keep thinking of that. that all nations will release the Jews.
this is such a good discussion on the original language i hope you all post more good stuff. (hint hint Alex and Rodrigo and others)
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
CHRISTIANS ARE GETTING THE PICTURE. THE AC WILL NOT RULE THE WHOLE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT TODAY ,BUT HIS INFLUNCE WILL BE FELT THU OUT THE WORLD.HERE I GO OUT ON A LIMB THE MARK THE BIBLE REFERS TO WILL NOT BE WORLD WIDE ASK ANY AMERICAN IF HE HAS HEARD OF THE MARK OF THE BEAST MOST WILL SAY YES GO TO THE MIDDLE EAST AND ASK THIS QUESTION MOST WILL NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT .I HAVE A DEAR BROTHER WHO SPENT YEARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ASK THIS OUESTION 99 PERCENT ANSWERD NO . BUT REMEMBER WE AMERICANS WILL NOT BE SETTING ON SUNNY BEACHES ARE COOKING HAMBURGERS DURING THIS TIME, CHRISTIAN IN THE U.S WILL BE PERSCUTED IT IS JUST NOW BEGINNING.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:33 am
When I read this yesterday, I found it very interesting and thought provoking. However after reading the following article, I believe he is wrong in suggesting the ac will only affect people directly “regionly”. Please prayerfully consider this other perspective and critic of this article. JM
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/2009/06/a_brief_response_to_rodrigo_silva.php
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:29 am
The article makes several valid points. However the article also makes some of the same mistakes it corrects, ultimately taking quite a long route only to make one small point. In other words, in my opinion, it amounts to bit of of smoke and mirrors. What do I mean by this? In the end, there is really only one word that would absolutely show universality. And that would be Kosmos. Ge, could be universal, but it also could he local as any word study will show. No need for a long drawn out lesson in logical fallacies and critical reviews of various lexicons to make that one small point.
However this issue of the Antichrist’s dominion does not revolve around these two words. There are many other very relevant Scriptures to be considered. When that is done, it is somewhat clear that the Antichrist’s rule will be primarily regional, over ten nations. Notice I said primarily. His influence will likely extend throughout the earth, bu it will not be absolute. Perhaps I will post my notes on this as well.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:44 am
Thank you so much for that article John! I don’t think anyone got my point earlier in this thread, which was that the translators of previous centuries could not simply have just made up their global translation if there was not also a genuine global alternative translation. Rodrigo should have made the point that he was just choosing one alternative to the Greek meanings and that it was not the only meaning!
Saying all that, I agree with Joel’s statement above. And just because Rodrigo was deceptive through omission, it doesn’t mean that his interpretation is wrong. This is surely one of those “wait and see” interpretations - like most prophecy. Unless we can get our hands on those original Aramaic documents…
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:38 am
Stuart,
I need to chime in on this one. I can assure you that Rodrigo was not “deceptive” in any way shape or form. I know Rodrigo and I can assure you that he is perhaps one of the most genuinely humble of all of the various prophecy students and teachers that I know. He should have been a bit more thorough in his research, and worded a few things more accurately, but we all make mistakes.
Cheers.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:37 am
Joel,
I think we would all like to see your notes on this. I certainly would, since I’ve taught a module on this very thing, and would love to have some additional support for the future. This ‘regional’ notion is a bit difficult for some people to accept.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 am
imo the idea of regional should not be that difficult to wrap our brains around.
For example, Hitler. Now this guy was regional in his power base yet what he did moved the whole earth to battle. It affected everyone yet not every nation was conquered. This era methinks is the most applicable of explanations as the whole world was truly affected. Truly a shadow of what is to come.
Also the ottoman empire was regional but not every nation was conquered yet their influence and the trouble they brought interrupting trade etc was felt in all the known world.
fwiw
blessings
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:04 am
John,
That’s an interesting rebuttal. I guess I’m going to have to return to this topic for more study. I still lean towards the regional model based on self-contained clues like Neb’s Dream in Daniel 2, where he was given dominion over the whole earth, but certainly did not rule over the whole earth. Or perhaps Alexander’s ‘goat’ that cross the whole earth without touching the ground, though Alexander certainly did not cross the entire earth as we know it.
Applying precise meaning to these words is a bit of a problem, and the immediate context of the passage or verse must be considered, to be sure. This in fact is how I originally arrived at the regional concept of the AC’s rule, since Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander’s kingdoms were only regional, despite the “whole earth” statements in those verses. That, combined with God’s destruction of those same regional nations in the last days, led me to a regional concept.
That being said, it is true that the entire world will suffer tribulation of one sort or another. But I can never shake the various passages, that have an end times context, that say things like the following;
Isa 24:14 “They raise their voices, they shout for joy; from the west they acclaim the LORD’S majesty. 15 Therefore in the east give glory to the LORD;…”
In this passage, “the west” is still worshipping the Lord. From this, it doesn’t sound like we will completely fall into the AC’s clutches.
But I could be wrong.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 am
TO good4u
Gotcha Bro!
and THIS is perhaps the WORST SCENARIO POSSIBLE….(I considered CHAVEZ as a CLEVER STOOGE Of AC)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3551/3511661497_e664f5d0d1_b.jpg
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:59 am
Pre-trib and even pre-wrath proponents will be very reluctant to acknowledge that the rule of Antichrist could be primarily regional as Scripture as a whole clearly suggests. I think they understand that if the AC’s rule is in fact primarily regional, then their whole argument in support of a pre-trib or even pre-wrath rapture (of the Rosenthal variety) rests on very shaky ground when considering that there will be significant portions of the globe that will be resistor nations.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
Joel,
I’d like to respond to your comment earlier:
You wrote:
“The article makes several valid points. However the article also makes some of the same mistakes it corrects”
I’d be interested in seeing what those are.
Also, you wrote,
“ultimately taking quite a long route only to make one small point. In other words, in my opinion, it amounts to bit of of smoke and mirrors.”
Long route? I was only responding to Rodigo’s article point-by-point, which his article is longer than mine! If I had only written a two-paragraph response to his lengthy article I would have been (and rightly so) accused of writing an insufficient article.
Moreover, it is not a small point. It has consequences on practical life. I ended my article with this:
Pretribulationsts are teaching that the Church will not experience the Great Tribulation; and Preterists claiming that the Church will not be in the Great Tribulation in the future; and Silva’s article argues that the universal Church will not be included in Antichrist’s realm since it will only be local.
Difficult times are coming upon the universal Church. God will call the last generation of the universal Church to experience the wrath of Antichrist. We need to be prepared with good teaching, and a blameless heart.
Ok.
Further, how can you possibly read my article and say that it is smoke and mirrors? I provided specifics; I documented; I reasoned; etc. It was a substantive article–anything but smoke and mirrors.
Again you wrote,
“What do I mean by this? In the end, there is really only one word that would absolutely show universality. And that would be Kosmos. Ge, could be universal, but it also could he local as any word study will show. No need for a long drawn out lesson in logical fallacies and critical reviews of various lexicons to make that one small point.”
This is demonstrably wrong. I documented that ge and oikoumenē can often refer to universality. All the Greek lexicons agree with this. Since you disagree with all the Greek lexicons, then you have to provide counter-evidence that these words cannot mean this.
Another synonym that can be used to show universality, which I did not mention in my article, is anthrōpou (e.g. Revelation 9:15, 20). There are other synonyms as well that show universality.
And though kosmos can refer to universality, it frequently does not show universality. For example in the book of John, from the Jewish perspective it means the gentile nations. We often miss John’s theology because we read back our 21 century universality meaning of the word “world.” What was shocking to the Jew was that Christ died not only for the Jews, but for the Gentiles! (i.e. the world).
And word actually has a dozen different meanings in the Bible.
So the fact is that there are a cluster of words that have universal meanings in their semantic ranges. Kosmos is not the only one of them. Second, examining context is primary.
Thank you,
Alan
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 am
I think the point here is this: When Scripture is compared with Scripture with respect to passages concerning the Antichrist, the greek word “ge” in Revelation 13:8 is best understood not as the whole literal earth but rather all the surrounding nations that a number of other OT passages refer to, i.e., “a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region.” I agree that if John wanted to convey the meaning of the whole literal earth he would have been inspired by the Spirit to clearly convey that intention, but John does not. In light of the multitude of Old Testament passages that consistently speak of surrounding nations or nations round about Jerusalem, it would be hermeneutically unsound to state that Revelation 13:8 absolutely must be speaking of planet earth as a whole.
Zechariah 14:2, “For I will gather ALL nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity…”
Look at Zech 14:2. This verse needs to agree with other verses of Scripture, which are explicit in stating that it is all of the surrounding nations. Since Scripture does not contradict Scripture, we need to apply proper hermeneutics to our understanding of 14:2. All the nations, as verse 14 states, are the surrounding nations and not all nations of the whole earth — for one, it would be a logistical impossibility for it to literally be all nations on the planet to surround the city of Jerusalem. That is common sense. Joel agrees with Zachariah in saying that it is the surrounding nations, and Ezekiel agrees as well by calling them “malicious neighbors”. Zechariah would not claim all nations on the planet in verse 2 and then turn around and say just the surrounding nations in verse 14. In the context of this chapter it is obvious that Zechariah is referring only to the surround nations, just as Joel and Ezekiel tell us.
Zechariah 14:14 “Judah also will fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the SURROUNDING nations will be gathered, gold and silver and garments in great abundance.”
Zechariah 12:2 “I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the SURROUNDING peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem.”
Joel 3:11-12 “Hasten and come, all you SURROUNDING nations, And gather yourselves there. Bring down, O LORD, Your mighty ones. Let the nations be aroused And come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat,For there I will sit to judge All the SURROUNDING nations.”
Ezekiel 28:24-26 “‘No longer will the people of Israel have malicious NEIGHBORS who are painful briers and sharp thorns. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD. ” ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I gather the people of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered, I will show myself holy among them in the sight of the nations. Then they will live in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. They will live there in safety and will build houses and plant vineyards; they will live in safety when I inflict punishment on all their NEIGHBORS WHO MALIGNED AGAINST THEM. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God.’”
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Mitchell,
First, we are to interpret the Old in light of the New, not the other way around.
Second, this avoids responding to my exegesis of the meanings of those words and the context of Revelation. You can’t just simply flatten or avoid my exegesis by saying: “the old testament talks about nations in the vicinity of Israel.” Revelation has a universal thrust to the book, not a local one, and John clearly conveys this.
Third, just because there are passages in the Old testament that predict judgment on the nations of Israel, by no means requires that the Day of the Lord’s wrath is limited to the surrounding areas of Israel. If one wants to be consistent, then when the OT predicts that all the nations of the earth will go up and worship the Lord, that can only mean the tangential nations to Israel.
Why do you demand that God must reveal to the nation of Israel in their near eastern context the names of nations and regions thousands of years into the future for him to communicate the whole earth? I find that oddly anachronistic.
Fourth, are you and Rodrigo really going to try to argue that the following promise is limited to only the nations surrounding Israel?:
“I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”” (Gen 12:3).
By the way, the Greek word there used of “earth” in the LXX is γῆ.
Alan
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Mitchell,
Also, your comment assumes your pressup of the Day of the Lord being a single 24-hour day, as well as not recognizing that there are three Battle campaigns in the future. Zechariah 14:2 is speaking of only one of those battles. Again, I would recommend reading some prewrath material. There are significant differences between the Battle of Jehosphat and the Battle of Armageddon. See Robert Van Kampens book _The Sign_ pp 288-89.
Please read prewrath literature first if you wan to discuss these matters of the nations surrounding Israel for battle.
Thank you,
Alan
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Joel,
My criticism of Rodrigo’s article was not based on any lack of thoroughness in his research or any bad wording that he might have expressed. My criticism is that he clearly omitted one of the definitions of the Greek word “ge” (which is that it can mean the whole world) which would otherwise have made the conclusiveness of his article redundant. Here is the full list of interpretations for “ge” from the Strong’s concordance, which Rodrigo said he used:
1) arable land
2) the ground, the earth as a standing place
3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water
4) the earth as a whole
a) the earth as opposed to the heavens
b) the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region
The Strong’s concordance clearly shows (as listed above) that “ge” can be interpreted as global. His whole article ignored translation 4 and was based on the premise that the word “ge” can only be translated as regional.
So you can’t tell me that his words are not deceptive. Whether he intended to be deceptive is another matter and one that I did not address.
As with the decate on Catholicism, I kindly ask you to stop interpreting my comments as personal attacks on people. You have no need to defend anyone from me, I am simply trying to make sure that the truth is the winner of any debate.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Alan, I agree that we should often interpret the Old in light of the New, but that does not mean that we cannot gain useful insight into New Testament Scripture by referring to the Old Testament. Look at the Bereans in Acts 17:10-11 who were called more noble because “they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Tell me, what Scriptures did they have to search? The Old Testament Scriptures. While I appreciate your exegetical analysis of the text, I see it as one dimensional in the sense that you have approached the text with a preconceived belief that Antichrist’s rule is literally global, and then formulate a reasoning in support of that presupposition. If the presupposition is removed and we allow the text to speak for itself, I believe that we can ascertain that the rule of the Antichrist will not be over the entire literal earth when the whole of Scripture is compared.
Alan - “Third, just because there are passages in the Old testament that predict judgment on the nations of Israel, by no means requires that the Day of the Lord’s wrath is limited to the surrounding areas of Israel…. Why do you demand that God must reveal to the nation of Israel in their near eastern context the names of nations and regions thousands of years into the future for him to communicate the whole earth? I find that oddly anachronistic.”
I agree that it does not require it, but it certainly suggests it. All references to the return of Christ and where He goes and whom He punishes refers to the surrounding nations. Why do we not find any Scripture that even suggests, for example, that He punishes and destroys nations outside and beyond the Middle East?
Alan - “If one wants to be consistent, then when the OT predicts that all the nations of the earth will go up and worship the Lord, that can only mean the tangential nations to Israel.”
First, we’re speaking about the rule of Antichrist, the ten-nation coalition that he controls, and the extent of his control beyond this ten-nation coalition. The whole of Scripture paints a picture for us that is primarily regional. Second, Zechariah 14:16 says that “And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.” However, there is nothing in the text or in the whole of Scripture that precludes other nations from visiting Israel to worship the King, so when it comes to consistency we need to consistently use all of Scripture and not just select passages.
Alan - “Fourth, are you and Rodrigo really going to try to argue that the following promise is limited to only the nations surrounding Israel?: “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”” (Gen 12:3).”
Are there any other verses in Scripture that limit this blessing to only the surrounding peoples and nations of Israel? There is your answer.
In Christ,
Mitchell
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Hello again everyone, some answers to your questions:
Laura said
Alex,
very cool!
Ok so if this is a regional kingdom is there hope that the US might find her soul again and be in support of Israel and helping those who hide from the dragon?
Thinking about the 1290 days she is nurtured. I understand that the area of petra is it? where there is a hiding place but i wonder if there will be various hiding places?
sorry for being all over the place but the idea of regional really makes things clearer methinks.
blessings
Alex says:
Hi Laura, well truth be told I’m not an American so I don’t go out of my way to try to find America in Bible prophecy or make predictions concerning her (or any other country for that matter, including my own).
The truth is this nationalistic mentality (”I’m proudly American” or “I’m proudly Greek”, ect. ect.) is pagan, Messiah said His kingdom is not of this world. We are Christians, we are not of this world (well, we’re not supposed to be) we should not “do as the pagans do”, we are meant to be one, just as the Father and the Son are one. Patriotism for our earthly (note temporary) homes is one of the greatest factors that is dividing the Church. Obsession about our earthly possessions and identity is futile, our Lord and King told us to seek first the kingdom - His kingdom NOT any other kingdom, because in the end it’s all gonna burn up in smoke anyway.
I don’t think the way the American church is handling situation in the State of Israel correctly. The much wealthier and secure western church should actually provide more support to the Palestinian Christians than the Israeli Jews. Now hear me out on this - the Palestinian Christians are being severly oppressed by the Palestian Muslims and sometimes even by the Israelis. Because they are getting little support from their brethren in the west they are turning to their “Muslim brothers” who are the enemies of YHWH. This lack of support from the western church is causing these believers in Messiah to sin by “yoking themselves with unbelivers”. This has to stop, the Palestinian Christians are in a good position to be “salt and light” to unbelieving “children of Abraham” around them, but they cannot do so without our help - help them, so that they won’t have to feel they must align themselves with the Muslims and so that their opportunities to witness to the Jews and Muslims won’t continue to go wasted - God is concerned with bringing souls into His kingdom, not furthering the cause of man’s kingdoms.
And about the Jews being “nutured” in the “wilderness” for 1290 days, I haven’t dealt with this particular issue in enough detail to form an opinion yet, but I think it’s possible that it has nothing to do with the tribulation but rather the history of persecution of the Jews in totality. Clue: look carefully at the position of the crowns in Rev. 12, 13 & 17. In 12 they’re on the 7 horns of the dragon, in 13 they’re on the 10 horns of the beast, in 17 they’re nowhere in sight, but we’re told that the 10 horns “have yet to receive a kingdom”, do you see the significance of this?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Michael (K.) said:
Thanks Alex.
I trust that as a Greek speaker you will continue to add insights into these translation discussions. I would love to hear about the specific areas in the Revelation where you feel the Greek may misrepresent the original transcript. I know this would require some speculation on your part, but this is just an exchange of ideas. So, if you would entertain that, I would listen.
Alex says:
Sure I’d be happy to compile a list of errors in Greek Revelation as well as the different readings in the existing Aramaic versions which do indeed make more sense. However I think it’s best I move this to Joel’s forum as this subject is too comprehensive for a blog post. Hopefully I’ll have time this week, otherwise check Joel’s forum sometime next week.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Rodrigo Silver said:
Hi evryone,
I am happy that this article was well received.
Alex, I was very intrigued by your comment about Revelation being written in Aramaic and that you are well versed in the Greek Bible. If possible, please get in touch with me through my e-mail address on the web site. I would like to talk to you about some Greek words for a book I am trying to write.
Blessings,
Rodrigo
Alex says:
Check your email.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Stuart Wall said:
The Strong’s concordance clearly shows (as listed above) that “ge” can be interpreted as global. His whole article ignored translation 4 and was based on the premise that the word “ge” can only be translated as regional.
So you can’t tell me that his words are not deceptive. Whether he intended to be deceptive is another matter and one that I did not address.
Alex says:
Stuart Greeks never use “ge” to refer to the entire planet, as Rodrigo’s landlord confirmed that “kosmos” is the correct word. Linguistics is not as simple as looking up a term in dictionary or lexicon, it also involves studying the history of how the word was used, and even how it is used today.
To my knowledge there is no literature outside the Greek Bible that ever applies “ge” to a global context, the word always used is “kosmos”.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Alex,
Perhaps there are other linguistic rules as you explain. My issue was that the translations given in Strong’s concordance for “ge” was not properly represented in Rodrigo’s article. It’s important to be fully transparent in situations like this because translation experts who compile these concordances surely know more about ancient languages than native speakers do about their modern languages. The two are not the same. This was addressed in the article John linked to. Whatever the true translation may be, selectively choosing meanings for a word from a concordance and representing them as though they were the full list is misleading.
As I said before, I’m not guessing intentions. But misrepresentations need to be exposed for what they are.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
what I would’ve said in Rodrigo’s place is how do we know for sure whether to translate Ge and Oikoumene as global or regional (because only Kosmos is clearly global)? this is really important!
the answer is simple, based on other passages in the Scriptures, I gave some in my above post; also, like I said it is really important to understand the mindset of the OT/NT authors, they had a Hebrew (Aramaic) mindset
in order to understand words like “every” and “all” like in “every tribe”, “all the world “, we need to first understand the Hebrew language; that means to study much more than a few paragraphs, but from Genesis to Revelation the usage of “every” and “all”; “all” is the Hebrew word “kol” and its meaning depends on context whether in our case is “all the world” or “all the region” and “every tribe in the world” or “every tribe in the region”
Rodrigo’s article is good, because he presents the regional meaning of those words which not many talk about, but he needs to be careful because the way he wrote the article, it sounds misleading and biased, like the meaning of the words is only regional
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Alan,
I didn’t realize that my comments would invoke such a response. Simply stated, by smoke and mirrors, I only mean that IMO, your article gave far more information than was necessary to make your point. A simple, explanation that ge can, but does not always mean the whole earth would have been enough. Again, just offering my opinion. Perhaps this is just my own personal preference, but whenever I read one of these books that presents a few perspectives on some theological issue, I am always leery of that contributor who feels the need to go overkill in their explanations. I felt as though your response leaned in this direction. Again, just offering my opinion.
As to an example of an error in your response. Here would be a good example:
“This is demonstrably wrong. I documented that ge and oikoumenē can often refer to universality. All the Greek lexicons agree with this. Since you disagree with all the Greek lexicons, then you have to provide counter-evidence that these words cannot mean this”
Straw Man 101. Never did I claim ge cannot mean universality. In fact, I fully agreed with you.
Next:
“First, we are to interpret the Old in light of the New, not the other way around. Second, this avoids responding to my exegesis of the meanings of those words and the context of Revelation. You can’t just simply flatten or avoid my exegesis by saying: “the old testament talks about nations in the vicinity of Israel.” Revelation has a universal thrust to the book, not a local one, and John clearly conveys this.”
Now regarding OT versus NT and which comes first, the chicken or the egg. This is most certainly not a settled issue among believers. I would argue that yes, the OT should be reinterpreted in light of the NT. However one cannot even understand the NT properly unless one first understands the OT in its context. This approach has led to replacement theology. But certainly one cannot begin with that which comes last. Nor can one begin with that which is the most symbolic and difficult to interpret in the whole Bible. This is common sense. One must begin with that which comes first. The Book of Rev comes last for a reason. So IMO, one must properly understand the many passages that Mitchell laid out if one is to understand the nature of the rule of the AC with regard to this discussion. Scripture emphasizes ten nations that the Ac will rule over. It lists many of them. Surely many others will also fall. But anything beyond this is assumption. And universality is impossible. It actually lists nations that will not fall to him. See Daniel 11 for instance.
Blessings,
Joel
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Laurence, Exactly.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Regional or global, either way I think it’s clear the AC wont completely control the whole world. Why else would there be war and conflict? I think it has to be more that attacking Christians.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Alan,
I don’t think anyone was suggesting here that the “universal church” will be spared; most who posted in this thread clearly said that AC’s rule will affect the whole world; and of course God will judge the whole world, and judgment starts in the House of God; I think people here were simply debating the borders of AC’s kingdom
June 4th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Thanks for your responses. I want to close with a final question to Silva, and only him. There is a salient issue that Stuart who is the only one who has brought it up here.
Rodrigo argues that ge is limited to only a regional meaning according to Strongs. As I have demonstrated, this is massively in error, since Strongs does in fact list a global sense of the word. I wondered what he was thinking when he made that claim.
If that was not bad enough, he does it again with claiming that Strongs lists oikoumenē as only limited to a region and not global. In his own words: “It does not refer to the globe…”
If that was not bad enough again, he makes this bold claim about myself and others who recognize that these words can have a global sense:
“This is a pick and choose approach which leads to inconsistency.”
That is nothing less than chutzpah. Since who is the one really doing the picking and choosing?
I ask Silva specifically, and I don’t want anyone else here mind reading him or talking for him: Why did you make false documented claims, not once, but twice about Strongs Lexicon? It’s a fair and honest question.
I work very hard in being accurate and representing the other perspective. I make sure my exegesis is sound and coherent. I am not perfect. I have made errors in my reasoning and exegesis before. But the degree of selectively in your article is beyond measure.
I am sure you are an all-around good guy, love Christ, and enjoy studying prophecy. I am just troubled by that conspicuous omission. Actually it was more than an omission, you actually claimed that the words could not mean “global” according to Strongs.
I have dealt with pretribulationists for many years. I expect those guys to be selective and dubious since that is what many of them exhibit in their representations of prewrath and their own defense of their position. They make a trade out of it.
I have no idea if you are pretrib, post, or prewrath. I don’t think it matters in this situation.
Thanks,
Alan
June 4th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
@Paulo,
I do think we are heading to the same conclusion, don’t you?
He doesn’t have to physically control the whole world, but by dominiating the vast majority of the world’s oil, he in effect can manipulate the “life blood” of industrial nations depending on whether or not they bow the knee to his control…simple and effective.
Now, it sounds good in theory, let’s see if plays out in reality….
June 5th, 2009 at 8:12 am
A great discussion guys, and so spirited. I would just like to add a short admonition for all of us….that as we discuss the fine points of the soon-coming prophetic events……we remain stedfast in preparing for the “worst case senerio”. The enemy of our souls is a master in captivating the minds of men with “much discussion” while he quietly works in the background to keep true believers away from their only mandate……to be “witnesses” (look that one up in the Greek).
Stay the course saints…….it’s only going to get worse…..according to my bible anyway!
June 5th, 2009 at 9:59 am
I often, rightly or wrongly, equate global rule with global influence. Joel’s spear analogy fits my thoughts. The size of the spearhead(rule) and the length of the shaft(influence) could possibly leave us with an odd looking spear. Because people live in all parts of the world I expect the Beast to be present in all parts of the world. I’m not sure about the depth of his presence though, like the scope of the mark of the Beast and direct Governmental rule.
I expect Nations will resist but it would be the Beast that they are resisiting. Will Europe fight against the possibility of Eurabia, will the South and Central American Governments, or even Mexico, resist rule or even influence. I’m not even assured that Canada will resist. Maybe modern day Nations won’t resist so much as the people within will resist. Maps and allegiances could be redrawn and redefined.
Will the United States remain united, will the United Kingdom remain United, will the European Union remain united. Even Canada has current, albeit seemingly negligible, unity issues with separatists in Quebec and Alberta. The emergence of the Beast could be the catalyst that breaks the Confederation.
I’m not confident that most of our current World leaders will place our Nations on the right side when the time comes. I’m hoping and praying we’ll have better leaders when things really start to go down.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
There are millions of Muslims who reside in other nations outside of the Middle East, and a certain percentage of them may “radicalize” once they start believing that they are witnessing events that their own Islamic “eschatology” foretold. The Mahdi may be that catalyst, and I believe that terrorism will be a huge problem after the Abomination of Desolation. Just my opinion.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:42 am
To all,
Please realize that one cannot rely on Strong’s lexicon alone for the real meanings of Greek words. As Paul Younan of Peshitta.org once stated:
“I think about another one of the responses to my question posed above, essentially stating that the definition is lacking support in the dictionaries.
Are our languages, and thoughts, to be governed by dictionaries? I thought it was the other way around.” (Source: http://www.peshitta.org/bethgazza/Gabra.htm)
Exactly it IS the other way around, if you want to know the true meaning of the word you need to study the history of it’s usage. The fact is “ge” never means “the entire world”, no ancient or modern Greek has ever applied “ge” in a global sense, and no Greek speaking Christian I know believes that the beast will rule the entire globe and the Greek church has never taught this.
Why does Strong list “the earth as a whole”? Because Strong, like most other Biblical scholars did not realize (or wouldn’t admit) that the Greek of the NT is not real Greek - it’s “Hellenized” Aramaic. The grammar structure is Semitic, and it contains a lot of Aramaic transliterations and invented words that don’t exist in the Greek language.
Make no mistake here, Greek is not the original language of any Bible book - no one ever spoke Greek like that. The “Greek” NT is a translation of an Aramaic original.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I am always amazed by individuals who make sweeping (false) claims about New Testament Greek.
Alex said,
“Exactly it IS the other way around, if you want to know the true meaning of the word you need to study the history of it’s usage.”
That is the common etymological fallacy. If you want to know the meaning of a word you study it in that little thing called…context.
You said,
“Make no mistake here, Greek is not the original language of any Bible book - no one ever spoke Greek like that. The “Greek” NT is a translation of an Aramaic original.”
You demonstrate your ignorance of Koine Greek, and that you are not even aware of the different literary levels within the Greek NT, e.g. Hebrews, Luke-Acts James being Literary Greek; and Revelation, Mark, John, being vulgar/semitic Greek.
Your fallacy is the inference that since a book such as Revelation has semitic influence, therefore it must have been a translation from Aramaic. At best it shows that the author’s native tongue is not the target language.
Furthermore, no one denies that here were not collections of Aramaic sources; e.g. Matthew and Luke. But to overthrow and undermine the fact that God ordained there would be a Greek canon denies God’s providence as well as undermines exegesis.
Take your phantom Aramaic-original New Testament books and peddle them somewhere else and quit being a troubler of God’s people.
“The fact is “ge” never means “the entire world”, no ancient or modern Greek has ever applied “ge” in a global sense, and no Greek speaking Christian I know believes that the beast will rule the entire globe and the Greek church has never taught this.”
That is so demonstrably in error that you are left with no credibility. Explain to me why most of the instances of this term means the “entire world”:
Gen 1:1-2, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 20, 22, 24-26, 28-30; 2:1, 4-7, 9, 11-13, 19; 3:1, 14, 17, 19, 23; 4:2-3, 10-12, 14, 16; 5:29; 6:1, 4-7, 11-13, 17, 20; 7:3-4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17-19, 21, 23-8:1; 8:3, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 17, 19, 21-9:2; 9:7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20; 10:5, 8, 10-11, 25, 32-11:2; 11:4, 8-9, 28, 31; 12:1, 3, 5-7, 10; 13:6-7, 9-10, 12, 15-17; 14:19, 22; 15:7, 13, 18; 16:3; 17:8; 18:2, 18, 25, 27; 19:1, 23, 25, 28, 31; 20:1, 15; 21:21, 23, 32, 34; 22:2, 18; 23:2, 7, 12-13, 15, 19; 24:3-5, 7-8, 37, 52, 62; 25:6; 26:1-4, 12, 15, 22; 27:28, 39, 46; 28:4, 12-15; 29:1; 30:25; 31:3, 13, 18; 32:4, 10; 33:3, 18; 34:2, 10, 21, 30; 35:6, 12, 16, 22, 27; 36:5-7, 16-17, 20-21, 30, 34, 43-37:1; 37:10; 38:9; 40:15; 41:19, 29-31, 33-34, 36, 41, 43-44, 46-48, 52-57; 42:5-7, 12-13, 29-30, 32-34; 43:1, 11, 26; 44:8, 11, 14; 45:6-10, 17-19, 25-26; 46:6, 12, 20, 27-28, 31, 34-47:1; 47:4-6, 11, 13-15, 18-20, 22-24, 26-28; 48:3-4, 7, 12, 16, 21; 49:15, 25, 30; 50:5, 7-8, 11, 13, 24; Exod 1:7, 10; 2:15, 22; 3:5, 8, 10-11, 17; 4:3; 6:1, 4, 8, 11, 13, 26, 28; 7:2-4, 9, 19, 21; 8:2-3, 10, 12-13, 17-21; 9:5, 9, 11, 14-16, 22-23, 25-26, 29, 33; 10:5-6, 12-15, 19, 21-22; 11:5-6, 9-12:1; 12:12-13, 17, 19, 25, 29-30, 33, 40-42, 48, 51; 13:3, 5, 11, 14-15, 17-18; 14:3, 11; 15:12; 16:1, 3, 6, 14, 32, 35; 18:3, 27-19:1; 19:5; 20:2, 4, 11-12, 24; 22:20; 23:9-10, 19-20, 22, 26, 29-31, 33; 29:46; 31:17; 32:4, 7-8, 11-13; 33:1, 3, 16; 34:8, 10, 12, 15, 24, 26; Lev 4:27; 11:2, 21, 29, 31, 41-46; 14:34; 16:22; 17:13; 18:3, 25, 27-28; 19:9, 23, 29, 33-34, 36; 20:2, 4, 22, 24-25; 22:24, 33; 23:10, 22, 39, 43; 25:2, 4-7, 9-10, 18-19, 23-24, 31, 38, 42, 45, 55-26:1; 26:4-6, 13, 19-20, 22, 32-34, 36, 38-39, 41-45; 27:21, 24, 30; Num 1:1; 3:13; 5:17; 8:17; 9:1, 14; 10:9, 30; 11:12, 31; 12:3; 13:2, 16-21, 25-27, 29, 32; 14:2-3, 6-9, 14, 16, 21, 23-24, 30-31, 34, 36-38; 15:2, 14, 18-19, 41; 16:13-14, 30-34; 18:13, 20; 20:12, 17, 23-24; 21:4, 22, 24, 26, 34-35; 22:5-6, 11; 26:10, 15, 53, 55; 27:12; 32:4-5, 7-9, 11, 17, 22, 29-30, 32-33; 33:1, 4, 37-38, 40, 51-55; 34:2, 12-13, 17-18, 29; 35:10, 14, 28, 32-34; 36:2; Deut 1:5, 7-8, 21-22, 25, 27, 30, 35-36; 2:5, 9, 12, 19-20, 24, 27, 29, 31, 37; 3:2, 8, 12-13, 18, 20, 24-25, 28; 4:1, 5, 10, 14, 17-18, 21-22, 25-26, 32, 36, 38-40, 43, 45-47; 5:6, 8, 15-16, 31, 33-6:1; 6:3-4, 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 23; 7:1, 6, 13, 22; 8:1, 7-10, 14, 19; 9:4-6, 12, 23, 26, 28-29; 10:7, 11, 14, 19; 11:3, 6, 8-12, 14, 17, 21, 25, 29-31; 12:1, 10, 16, 19, 24, 29; 13:6, 8, 11; 14:2; 15:4, 7, 11, 15, 23; 16:3, 12, 20; 17:14; 18:9; 19:1-3, 8, 10, 14; 20:1, 16; 21:1, 8, 23; 22:6; 23:8, 21; 24:4, 18, 20, 22; 25:15, 19-26:3; 26:9-10, 12, 15; 27:2-3; 28:1, 4, 8, 10-12, 18, 21, 23-26, 33, 42, 49, 51-52, 56, 63-64, 69-29:1; 29:7, 15, 21-24, 26-27; 30:5, 9, 16, 18-20; 31:4, 7, 13, 16, 20-21, 23, 28; 32:1, 10, 13, 22, 24, 43, 47, 49, 52; 33:13, 16-17, 21, 28; 34:1-2, 4-6, 11; Josh 1:2, 6, 11, 13-15; 2:1-3, 9-11, 24; 3:11, 13; 4:7, 18, 24; 5:6, 11-12, 14; 6:27; 7:6, 9, 21; 8:1, 6, 9, 11, 24; 9:40, 42; 10:3, 16, 23-11:1; 12:1-2, 4-5, 7, 21, 25; 13:1, 4-5, 7, 9, 15; 14:8, 19; 16:6, 12; 17:1, 3-4, 6, 8-9; 18:49, 51; 20:2, 42-43; 21:4, 9-11, 13, 15, 19, 32-33; 22:5, 13-15; 23:3, 7-8, 13, 15, 18; Judg 1:2, 14-15, 26-27, 32-33; 2:1-2, 6, 12; 3:11, 25, 30; 4:21; 5:4, 31; 6:4-5, 9-10, 37, 39-7:1; 8:28; 9:37; 10:4, 8; 11:3, 5, 12-13, 15, 17-19, 21, 29; 12:12, 15; 13:20; 16:24; 18:2, 9-10, 14, 17, 30; 20:1, 21, 25; 21:12, 21; Ruth 1:1, 7; 2:10-11; 1 Sam 1:21; 2:5, 8, 10, 27; 3:19, 21; 4:5, 12; 6:1, 5; 7:6; 9:2, 4, 16; 13:3, 7, 17, 19-20; 14:15, 25, 29, 32, 45; 17:44, 46, 49; 20:15, 31; 21:12; 22:5; 23:14, 23, 27; 24:9; 25:23, 41; 26:7-8, 20; 27:1, 8-9; 28:3, 9, 13-14, 20, 23; 29:11; 30:16; 31:9; 2 Sam 1:2; 2:22; 4:11; 5:6, 25; 7:9, 23; 8:2; 9:10; 10:2; 12:16-17, 20; 13:31, 37; 14:4, 7, 11, 14, 20, 22, 33; 15:4, 23, 32; 17:12, 26; 18:8-9, 11, 28; 19:10; 20:10; 21:14; 22:8, 43; 23:4; 24:6, 8, 13, 20, 25; 1 Kgs 1:23, 31, 40, 52; 2:2, 46; 4:18; 5:14; 7:33; 8:9, 21, 23, 27, 34, 36, 40, 46-48, 51, 53, 60; 9:7-8, 11, 26; 10:6-7, 12-13, 15; 9:15-20; 10:23-24, 26; 11:21-25, 43; 12:24, 28, 32; 13:34; 14:24; 15:12, 20; 16:2, 28; 17:7, 14; 18:1, 5, 12, 42; 21:27; 22:36; 2 Kgs 2:15, 19; 3:20, 27; 4:37-38; 5:2, 4, 15, 17, 19; 6:23; 8:1-3, 6; 10:10, 33; 11:3, 14, 18-20; 13:18, 20; 15:5, 19-20, 29; 17:5, 7, 23, 26-27, 36; 18:25, 32, 35; 19:7, 11, 15, 19, 37; 20:14; 21:8, 24; 23:24, 30, 33, 35; 24:2, 7, 14-15; 25:3, 12, 19, 21-22, 24; 1 Chr 1:10, 45; 4:40; 5:9, 23, 25; 6:40; 7:21; 10:9; 11:4; 13:2; 14:17; 16:14, 18, 23, 30-31, 33; 17:8, 21; 19:2-3; 21:12, 16, 21; 22:2, 5, 8, 18; 27:12, 26; 28:8; 29:11, 15, 30; 2 Chr 1:9; 2:11, 16; 4:17; 5:10; 6:5, 14, 18, 25, 27-28, 31-33, 36-38; 7:3, 14, 20-22; 8:8, 17; 9:5, 11-12, 14, 23, 26, 28; 12:8; 13:9, 23; 14:5-7; 15:8; 16:9; 17:6, 10; 19:3; 20:7, 10, 24, 29; 22:12; 23:17, 20-21; 26:1, 21; 29:9; 30:9, 25; 32:13, 17, 19, 21, 31; 33:8, 25; 34:7-8, 33; 35:19; 36:1-5, 14, 21, 23; 1 Esd 1:55; 4:2, 6, 15, 34, 36; 5:49, 69; 6:12; 7:13; 8:66-67, 74, 80, 82, 84, 89; 9:9, 47; Ezra 1:2; 4:4; 5:11; 6:21; 9:11-12; 10:2, 11; Neh 3:36; 5:14; 8:6; 9:6, 8, 10, 15, 22-24, 30, 35-36; 10:29, 31-32, 36, 38; Esth 11:5, 8; 13:10, 16; 10:1; Jdt 1:9, 11-12; 2:1-2, 5-7, 9, 11, 19-20; 3:8; 5:7, 9-10, 12, 15, 18, 21; 6:2, 4; 7:4, 18, 28; 8:22; 9:12; 10:19; 11:1, 7-8, 16, 21, 23; 13:18; 14:2; 16:21; Tob 1:4; 3:6, 13, 15; 4:12; 6:3; 7:17; 13:8; 14:4-5; 1 Macc 1:1-3, 9, 16, 19, 24, 28, 44, 52; 2:37, 40, 56; 3:9, 24, 29, 36, 39-41; 4:22, 40; 5:45, 48, 53, 55, 65-66, 68; 6:5, 13, 46, 49; 7:6, 10, 22, 50; 8:4, 10, 16; 9:1, 13, 57, 69, 72; 10:13, 30, 33, 37, 55, 67, 72; 11:34, 38, 52, 71; 12:4, 46, 52; 13:1, 12, 24, 32; 14:4, 8, 10-11, 13; 15:9-10, 14, 29, 33; 2 Macc 1:7; 3:27; 5:15, 21; 7:28; 9:8; 10:25; 13:7; 14:15; 15:5; 3 Macc 2:9, 14; 6:3, 5, 7, 15; 7:20; 4 Macc 15:15; 18:5; Ps 1:4; 2:2, 8, 10; 7:6; 8:2, 10; 9:37, 39; 11:7; 15:3; 16:11, 14; 17:8; 18:5; 20:11; 21:28, 30; 23:1; 24:13; 26:13; 32:5, 8, 14; 33:17; 36:3, 9, 11, 22, 29, 34; 40:3; 41:7; 43:4, 26; 44:17; 45:3, 7, 9-11; 46:3, 8, 10; 47:3, 11; 49:1, 4; 51:7; 56:6, 12; 57:3, 12; 58:14; 59:4; 60:3; 62:2, 10; 64:6, 10; 65:1, 4; 66:3, 5, 7-8; 67:9, 33; 68:35; 70:20-21; 71:6, 16-17, 19; 72:9, 25; 73:7-8, 12, 17, 20; 74:4, 9; 75:9-10, 13; 76:19; 77:12, 40, 69; 78:2; 79:10; 80:6, 11; 81:5, 8; 82:11, 19; 84:2, 10, 12-13; 87:13; 88:12, 28, 40, 45; 89:2; 92:1; 93:2; 94:4; 95:1, 9, 11, 13-96:1; 96:4-5, 9; 97:3-4, 9-98:1; 99:1; 100:6, 8; 101:16, 20, 26; 102:11; 103:5, 9, 13-14, 24, 30, 32, 35; 104:7, 11, 16, 23, 27, 30, 32, 35-36; 105:17, 22, 24, 38; 106:34-35; 107:6; 108:15; 109:6; 111:2; 112:6-7; 113:7, 11, 23-24; 118:19, 64, 87, 90, 119; 120:2; 123:8; 133:3; 134:6-7, 12; 135:6, 21; 136:4; 137:4; 138:15; 139:12; 140:7; 141:6; 142:3, 6, 10; 145:4, 6; 146:6, 8; 147:4; 148:7, 11, 13; Pr Man 1:12; 2:1, 13, 22, 24, 43; 3:5, 8, 10; 4:3, 6-7, 9, 12; 5:9-10, 15, 18-19; 6:7; 7:32, 37; 8:74, 76; 10:8; 11:11; 12:2, 13; 14:2; Prov 1:11-12; 2:21-22; 3:19; 8:16, 24, 29; 9:12; 10:30; 12:11; 15:6; 17:24; 21:19; 25:3, 25; 28:19; 30:4, 14, 16, 21, 24; 31:23; Eccl 1:4; 3:21; 5:1, 8; 7:20; 8:14, 16; 10:7, 17; 11:2-3; 12:7; Song 2:12; Job 1:3, 7-8, 10; 2:3, 9, 12; 3:14; 5:6, 10; 7:1, 5, 21; 8:9, 19; 10:9, 21-22; 11:9; 12:8, 15, 17, 19, 24; 14:5, 8, 19; 15:19, 29; 16:13, 15, 18; 18:10, 17; 19:25; 20:4, 27; 21:26; 22:8; 24:4, 13, 18-19; 26:7; 27:16; 28:2, 5, 24; 29:23; 30:8, 19, 23; 31:8, 38-39; 34:13, 15; 35:11; 37:3, 6, 12-13, 17; 38:4, 13-14, 19, 26, 37-38; 39:14, 24; 40:13; 41:17, 25; 42:6, 17; Wis 1:1, 14; 5:23-6:1; 7:3; 9:16, 18; 10:4; 11:22; 12:3, 7; 15:7-8, 10; 16:19; 18:15-16; 19:7, 10, 19; Sir 1:3; 10:4, 9, 16-17; 16:18-19, 29; 17:1, 32; 20:28; 24:3, 6; 33:10; 36:17; 38:4, 8; 39:4, 31; 40:3, 11; 41:10; 43:17, 19; 44:17, 21; 45:22; 46:8-9, 20; 47:15, 24; 48:15; 49:14; 50:17; 51:9; Sol 1:4; 2:9-10, 17, 21, 26, 29, 32; 4:22; 5:15; 8:7-8, 15-16, 23-24; 9:1-2; 15:12; 17:2, 7, 10-12, 18, 28, 30-31, 35; 18:3; Hos 1:2; 2:2, 5, 14, 17, 20, 23-25; 4:1-3; 6:3; 7:16-8:1; 9:3; 10:1; 11:11; 12:10; 13:4-5, 15; Amos 1:11; 2:7, 10; 3:1-2, 5, 11, 14; 4:13; 5:2, 7-8; 7:2, 10-12, 17; 8:4, 8-9, 11; 9:5-9, 15; Mic 1:2-3, 10; 4:3, 13; 5:3-5, 10; 6:2, 4; 7:2, 13, 17; Joel 1:2, 6, 10, 14; 2:1, 3, 10, 18, 20-21; 3:3; 4:2, 16, 19; Obad 1:3, 20; Jonah 1:13; 2:7; 4:2; Nah 1:5; 2:14; 3:13; Hab 1:6; 2:8, 14, 17, 20; 3:3, 6-7, 9, 12; Zeph 1:2-3, 18; 2:3, 5, 11, 14; 3:8, 19-20; Hag 1:10-11; 2:4, 6, 21; Zech 1:10-11; 2:4, 10, 16; 3:9; 4:10, 14; 5:3, 6, 9, 11; 6:5-8; 7:5, 14; 8:7, 12; 9:1, 10, 16; 10:10; 11:6, 16; 12:1, 3, 12; 13:2, 5, 8; 14:9-10, 17; Mal 3:11-12, 23; Isa 1:2, 7, 19; 2:7-8, 10, 19, 21; 3:26; 4:2; 5:8, 26, 30; 6:3, 11-12; 7:16, 22, 24; 8:9, 19, 22-23; 9:18; 11:4, 12, 16; 12:5; 13:5, 13; 14:1-2, 7, 9, 12, 15-16, 20-21, 25; 16:1, 4; 18:1-2, 6; 19:3, 24; 21:1, 9; 23:1, 8-10, 13; 24:3-6, 11, 13-14, 16-21; 25:8; 26:1, 9-10, 15, 18-19, 21; 28:2, 22, 24; 29:4; 30:23-24; 32:2, 13; 33:9, 17; 34:1, 7, 9, 15; 35:6-7; 36:17, 20; 37:7, 11, 16, 20; 38:11; 39:3; 40:12, 21-24, 28; 41:2, 5, 9, 18-19, 24; 42:4-5, 10; 43:6; 44:23-24; 45:8-9, 12, 18-19, 22; 46:11; 47:1; 48:13, 16, 19-20; 49:6, 8, 12-13, 23; 51:6, 13, 16, 23; 52:10; 53:2, 8; 54:5, 9; 55:9-10; 57:13; 58:14; 60:2, 18, 21; 61:7, 11; 62:4, 7, 11; 63:3, 6, 11; 65:16-17, 25-66:1; 66:8, 16, 22; Jer 1:1, 14-15, 18; 2:6-7, 15, 31; 3:2, 16, 18-19; 4:5, 7, 16, 20, 23, 27-28; 5:19, 30; 6:8, 12, 19-20, 22; 7:7, 20, 22, 25, 33-34; 8:2, 16, 19; 9:2, 11, 18, 20-21, 23; 10:11-13, 18, 22; 11:4-5, 19; 12:4-5, 11-12, 14-15; 13:13; 14:2, 4, 8, 13, 15, 18; 15:3-4, 10, 14; 16:3-4, 13-15, 18-19; 17:6, 13, 26; 18:16; 19:7; 22:10, 12, 26-29; 23:3, 5, 10, 15, 24, 7-8; 24:5-6, 8-10; 25:5, 9, 11, 13; 26:8, 10, 12-13; 27:3, 8-9, 16, 18, 20, 22-23, 25, 28, 34, 38, 41, 46; 28:2, 4-5, 7, 9, 15-16, 25, 27-29, 41, 43, 49-50, 52, 54; 29:2; 30:15; 31:21; 32:26, 29-33, 38; 33:6, 17, 20; 34:5-6, 10-11; 35:8, 16; 36:7; 37:3; 38:8, 12, 16, 23-24, 32, 35; 39:8, 15, 17, 20-22, 37, 41, 43-44; 40:2, 9, 11, 13-41:1; 41:13, 17, 20, 22; 42:7, 11, 15, 19; 43:29, 31; 44:2, 7, 12, 19; 47:5-7, 9, 11-12; 48:2, 18; 49:10, 12-14, 16-17; 50:4-5, 11-12; 51:1, 8-9, 13-15, 21-22, 26-28; 52:6, 25, 27; Bar 1:8-9, 11, 19-20; 2:11, 15, 21, 23, 30, 32, 34-35; 3:10, 16, 20, 23, 32, 38; 5:7; 6:19, 25, 53; Lam 2:1-2, 9-11, 15; 3:34; 4:12, 21; Ezek 1:3, 15, 19, 21; 6:14; 7:2, 4, 21, 23, 27; 8:3, 12, 17; 9:9; 10:16, 19; 11:15-17, 24; 12:6, 12-13, 19-20, 22; 13:9, 14; 14:13, 15-17, 19; 15:8; 16:3, 29; 17:4-5, 13; 19:4, 7, 12-13; 20:5-6, 8-10, 15, 28, 32, 36, 38, 42; 21:7-8, 35, 37; 22:24, 29-30; 23:15-16, 27, 48; 24:7; 25:3, 6, 9; 26:11, 16, 20; 27:29-30, 33; 28:17-18, 25; 29:5, 9-10, 12, 14, 19-20; 30:11-14, 25; 31:12, 14, 16, 18; 32:4, 6, 8-9, 15, 18, 23-24, 26-27, 32; 33:2-3, 24, 28-29; 34:6, 13, 25, 27-29; 35:14; 36:5-6, 17, 20, 24, 28, 34-35; 37:12, 14, 21-22, 25; 38:2, 8-9, 11-12, 16, 18-20; 39:12-16, 18, 26; 40:2; 42:6; 43:2; 45:1, 4, 7-8, 22; 46:3, 9; 47:13-15, 18, 21; 48:12, 14, 29; Dan 1:12, 20; 2:10, 35, 39-40; 3:1, 32, 37, 74, 76, 81; 4:10-12, 15, 17, 20-22, 27, 32-33, 37; 6:26; 7:4, 14, 17, 23; 8:5, 7, 10-11; 9:2, 6; 10:9, 15; 11:9; 12:2, 4; 14:5
Matt 2:6, 20-21; 4:15; 5:5, 13, 18, 35; 6:10, 19; 9:6, 26, 31; 10:15, 29, 34; 11:24-25; 12:40, 42; 13:5, 8, 23; 14:24, 34; 15:35; 16:19; 17:25; 18:18-19; 23:9, 35; 24:30, 35; 25:18, 25; 27:45, 51; 28:18; Mark 2:10; 4:1, 5, 8, 20, 26, 28, 31; 6:47, 53; 8:6; 9:3, 20; 13:27, 31; 14:35; 15:33; Luke 2:14; 4:25; 5:3, 11, 24; 6:49; 8:8, 15, 27; 10:21; 11:31; 12:49, 51, 56; 13:7; 14:35; 16:17; 18:8; 21:23, 25, 33, 35; 22:44; 23:44; 24:5; John 3:22, 31; 6:21; 8:6, 8; 12:24, 32; 17:4; 21:8-9, 11; Acts 1:8; 2:19; 3:25; 4:24, 26; 7:3-4, 6, 29, 33, 36, 40, 49; 8:33; 9:4, 8; 10:11-12; 11:6; 13:17, 19, 47; 14:15; 17:24, 26; 22:22; 26:14; 27:39, 43-44; Rom 9:17, 28; 10:18; 1 Cor 8:5; 10:26; 15:47; Eph 1:10; 3:15; 4:9; 6:3; Col 1:16, 20; 3:2, 5; Heb 1:10; 6:7; 8:4, 9; 11:9, 13, 29, 38; 12:25-26; Jas 5:5, 7, 12, 17-18; 2 Pet 3:5, 7, 10, 13; Jude 1:5; Rev 1:5, 7; 3:10; 5:3, 6, 10, 13; 6:4, 8, 10, 13, 15; 7:1-3; 8:5, 7, 13-9:1; 9:3-4; 10:2, 5-6, 8; 11:4, 6, 10, 18; 12:4, 9, 12-13, 16; 13:3, 8, 11-14; 14:3, 6-7, 15-16, 18-19; 16:1-2, 18; 17:2, 5, 8, 18-18:1; 18:3, 9, 11, 23-24; 19:2, 19; 20:8-9, 11; 21:1, 24
Some people simply amaze me.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Alan said, “If you want to know the meaning of a word you study it in that little thing called…context”
I agree with this statement. However, the fact remains that the context of “ge” here is not intended to convey the whole literal earth when speaking about the Antichrist and his power, unless you wish to contend that Scripture contradicts Scripture when all references to Antichrist and his actions are compared.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Mitchell,
I’ll let the reader decide who is playing fast and loose with Scripture and who is seeking to handle God’s word properly in its context:
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/2009/06/a_brief_response_to_rodrigo_silva.php
June 7th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Alan K said:
I am always amazed by individuals who make sweeping (false) claims about New Testament Greek.
Alex said,
“Exactly it IS the other way around, if you want to know the true meaning of the word you need to study the history of it’s usage.”
Alan K said:
That is the common etymological fallacy. If you want to know the meaning of a word you study it in that little thing called…context.
Alex says:
No, no, Alan K. Greek does not work like Aramaic or Hebrew it is not a Semitic language. Greek is a very specific language, even more so than English that’s why it’s the language of Science, Medicine & Mathematics. Very few Greek words have more than one meaning.
Alan K said:
You said,
“Make no mistake here, Greek is not the original language of any Bible book - no one ever spoke Greek like that. The “Greek” NT is a translation of an Aramaic original.”
You demonstrate your ignorance of Koine Greek, and that you are not even aware of the different literary levels within the Greek NT, e.g. Hebrews, Luke-Acts James being Literary Greek; and Revelation, Mark, John, being vulgar/semitic Greek.
Alex says:
Dude there was literary or “Classical” Greek and colliquial Greek with many dialects (Athenian, Corinthian, Ephesian, ect.). There are many dialects of modern colliquial Greek and it is ludacrious to assume that there was only one dialect of 1st century colloquial Greek - that is illogical.
And yes I am aware of the varying quality of Greek between the books of the Greek NT, which only leans more favour that it’s a translation and not the original language. And then there are the variants between the mss, and I don’t mean spelling errors or slips of the scribe’s pen, I mean where one verse reads one way in one mss and a different way in another (eg: burn/boast in 1 Cor. 13:3). Tell me where did those variants come from? Which reading is the original?
The Greek of the NT doesn’t resemble either Classical or colliquial Greek, no one ever spoke Greek with Semitic grammar, not even the Jews. Here’s an illustration of what I mean:
Classical Greek:
I enquired of thou where art mine computer?
Colloquial Greek:
I asked you, where is my computer?
The Greek of the NT:
Ask you I, my computer is where?
That is exactly what the Greek NT sounds like when you hear it being read, just like the LXX which we all know is translated from Hebrew & Aramaic, there is no difference. Yes I understand what it means but it sounds that awful. C’mon do you honestly believe that God will speak to anyone like this?
And please tell me why the Aramaic word shakira is transliterated in Luke 1:15 as sikera? Greeks had their own word for “strong drink” we didn’t need to borrow it from Aramaic. Also please tell me why Luke’s Greek is even surpassed by that of Josephus who himself admitted that he wasn’t a native Greek speaker?
Do you want more examples? I have plenty, I’ve done my homework thank you very much.
Alan K said:
Your fallacy is the inference that since a book such as Revelation has semitic influence, therefore it must have been a translation from Aramaic. At best it shows that the author’s native tongue is not the target language.
Alex says:
What about the word galkolivano in Revelation 1:15? Can you find it in any Greek literature outside the Greek Bible? I can’t and I’ll tell you why - this word doesn’t exist in the Greek language, it’s an invented word.
Or what about alpha and omega in Revelation 1:8? Why is that in every Greek text except the very late Textus Receptus the word alpha is written but the letter omega stands by itself?
Alan K says:
Furthermore, no one denies that here were not collections of Aramaic sources; e.g. Matthew and Luke. But to overthrow and undermine the fact that God ordained there would be a Greek canon denies God’s providence as well as undermines exegesis.
Alex says:
Who said I’m denying that there would be a Greek cannon? Of course there would be but that doesn’t mean it’s the original cannon. Yes of course the Word of God is meant to be translated into every language but a translation cannot claim to be the original - even the Muslims understand that much. The fact is the original words of God and His son are the ones that they themselves spoke IN THE LANGUAGE they spoke them. Like I said earlier when you pray to God you pray in your native language not your second language, so then why would God speak to you in your second language rather than your native language? C’mon now this is common sense is it not?
No one denies that the NT authors were native Aramaic speakers, so why would God speak to them in any language other than their own? Try to slice it anyway you buddy, the “God brethed” original can only be Aramaic.
(BTW there is no concrete evidence that Luke was Greek or even that he was a gentile, all we know about him was that he was born in Syrian Antioch. Note Syrian Antioch, where Syriac (i.e. Aramaic) was spoken as well as Greek, but the fact that his Greek wasn’t even as good as Josephus (a native Aramaic speaker) proves that he wasn’t a native Greek speaker either).
Alan K said:
Take your phantom Aramaic-original New Testament books and peddle them somewhere else and quit being a troubler of God’s people.
Alex says:
Oh so now I’m making trouble for God’s people just because I decide to use my brain instead of believing the mambo jumbo the unbelieving scholars try to feed me?
Jesus spoke Aramaic did He not? But according to popular western scholarship since the NT that we have is the “original” we have lost the original words of Jesus. I kid you not buddy, those Greek words are translated from the original Aramaic Jesus spoke, which means they’re not the words that actually proceeded from his mouth - which means the most important words ever uttered in history are lost forever! Do you realize the implications of this???
I do a lot of apologetic work, especially inter-religious dialogue with Muslims and they love nothing more than to tell me that the Church deliberately destroyed the original words of Jesus and replaced them with what they wanted Him to say. And they have no problem digging up all the dirty secrets of the Church (eg: check out the little side note for Hebrews 1:3 in the Codex Vaticanus and tell me what it says). So according to popular western scholarship we have the original words of Moses in the language he spoke them (Hebrew) and the original words of Muhammad in the language he spoke them (Arabic), and the original words of Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, ect. but we don’t have the original words of Jesus? Why not? Didn’t the Church even care to preserve the most important words ever uttered in any language???
Do you know how many Spirit-filled Christians abandon Christianity once they start attending seminary? Do you know that most of the translators and scholars who translate & publish the Bibles you read don’t even believe in a single word that is written in them???
Lemme tell you something mate, when you really start to delve deep into Church history and textual transmission you’ll discover the truth about the Greco-Roman church and it’s ugly - very ugly! It’s enough to make you abandon your faith. The Muslims accuse the Church of “corrupting the Bible” and guess what - they (the Greco-Roman church) did, go and examine the mss and see for yourself.
Had I not discovered the Peshitta, I would’ve converted to Judaism. The Peshitta has no errors and no variants - thank God there was a church that did care about preserving the original Apostolic writings, and isn’t it ironic that it was the church that was under Islamic rule - seems when we have to much freedom we become corrupt. The Peshitta has no revision history behind it (the Peshitta NOT the Peshitto), the Church of the East never altered a thing from day 1, not even the cannon, and good luck finding just one example, trust me you won’t no one can.
“But there are no Peshitta mss older than the 4th century.” There are no Greek mss older than the 4th century either there are only fragments. The Assyrians followed the Jewish practice burning their old copies before they started to fall apart - as soon as an mss (or page) became unsuitable for daily use (torn/faded) they would immediately make a new copy then burn the old one. Tell me why the oldest Hebrew Tanakh dates no earlier than AD 900? Yes I’m aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but these weren’t meant to become fragments - the Essenes hid them when the Romans invaded hoping to come back for them when times were less dangerous. Even so translators cannot work with fragments that’s why they still use the Masoretic text even though it’s the youngest OT text (the LXX, Peshitta Tanakh, Targums & Vulgate are all much older), likewise they can’t work with the Greek NT fragments so the truth is they translate your Bibles from mss that are no older than the Peshitta mss. They use Greek mss no older than the Peshitta, yet they use the Masoretic text instead of the LXX which is the oldest complete OT mss? A rather hypocritical approach wouldn’t you say?
There are many other reasons to question the claims most scholars make about the Peshitta but in end if we believe them we are still left with the delima that we have lost the words of Christ forever. I’m sorry but if they are right then we are left with no other alternative which means that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against the Church.
You think about that one before telling me about God’s providence.
Alan K said:
Alex said:
“The fact is “ge” never means “the entire world”, no ancient or modern Greek has ever applied “ge” in a global sense, and no Greek speaking Christian I know believes that the beast will rule the entire globe and the Greek church has never taught this.”
That is so demonstrably in error that you are left with no credibility. Explain to me why most of the instances of this term means the “entire world”:
Alex says:
Yes I also have BibleWorks and I also did that word search. You do know that the LXX is a translation right? You did know that there is no Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word olam didn’t you?
Firstly the LXX Torah was translated by Jews from Israel - the Letter of Aristeas states that the seventy-two Jewish scholars only translated the Torah. These were Aramaic speaking Jews, the other LXX books were (probably) translated by Alexandrian Jews who were Greek speakers. Perhaps the Israeli Jews didn’t have as good a grasp with Greek as the Alexandrian Jews, or perhaps they were so staunchly anti-Greek (check out the Talmud) that they refused to “Hellenize” their beloved books of Moses. And while you can compile lists from BibleWorks it’s evident that you didn’t read the verses, not all the verses you gave refer to the world.
What can I say the LXX is a translation and errors are inevitable, sometimes they used the correct word (eg: ge for Ruth 1:1) sometimes not (eg: ge for Genesis 1:1 - they should’ve used kosmos). Another example of a translation error in the LXX is Ezekiel 38:2 where they transliterated the Hebrew word rosh as ros instead of translated it as chief or head. How do I know this is an error? Go to 2 Samuel 15:32 or 16:1 and you’ll see the same error but spelt differently as roos, and compare it with the Hebrew. Did David go to the top or to the roos? The point is the LXX is a translation and for whatever reason it will contain errors.
BUT the Greek NT reads exactly like the LXX and contains many of the same errors - that is proof that it is a translation, last time I checked God does NOT inspire error! Not only that, guess what’s attached to the oldest complete Greek NT mss (which date to the 4th century) - the LXX! That should send warning bells ringing loud and clear and explains why the NT “seems” to quote the LXX. Many scholars have noticed places where a verse in the Greek NT was corrected to read like the LXX and vice versa for the sake of consistancy, this is especially obivious in the Codex Alexandrinus.
Now even English Bible translators do this and it’s not a problem - unless you believe it’s the original!
But it’s not all gloom and doom the power of the Holy Spirit is not limited by a flawed translation. Millions of souls have been brought into the kingdom despite the Greek NT’s flaws.
June 7th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Alan said, “I’ll let the reader decide who is playing fast and loose with Scripture and who is seeking to handle God’s word properly in its context”
Fair enough. While they are doing that, however, can you please explain what your position on Romans 10:18 is? Rom 10:18 says, “But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into ALL THE EARTH, and their words unto the ends of the world.” Do you contend that “ge” in Romans 10:18 refers to the whole literal planet? If not, why not?
I understand your desire to support the position that the rule of Antichrist encompasses the entire globe, especially since the pre-wrath view (like the pre-trib view) requires that it be planet-wide in order for those two views to even begin making any sense, but this is not a contest to see who can formulate the longest arguments. This is a matter of sound hermeneutics that allow the whole of Scripture to speak for itself when it comes to the extent of Antichrist’s dominion.
Sound hermeneutics and sound logic go hand in hand.
Daniel 11:41 alone is proof that Antichrist’s power will NOT be global: “He shall also enter the Glorious Land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon”. Even if this is just referring to Jordan that should tell you something very revealing and cause you to ask why is it that the Antichrist is unable to control a relatively simple country like Jordan? Any why is it that Scripture is clear to point out that the trumpet and bowl judgments are only directed at Antichrist, upon those who have his mark and worship him? Does this not suggest that there will be many upon the earth who are not being subject to the trumpet and bowl judgments? If they were upon literally everyone on earth, why even bother to make that point?
June 7th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Alex,
Sir, your statements are most disturbing and fallacious. The fact that in your apologetics with Muslims you would intentionally undermine the Greek textual tradition is most disturbing, indeed. From reading your material, you know next to nothing about the confidence we can have as Christians in the textual reliability of the Bible. I have studied formally at Harvard Divinity in specifically New Testament textual criticism, and I have written extensively on it. You sir, are completely ignorant and irresponsible by your statements.
You wrote:
“I do a lot of apologetic work, especially inter-religious dialogue with Muslims and they love nothing more than to tell me that the Church deliberately destroyed the original words of Jesus and replaced them with what they wanted Him to say. And they have no problem digging up all the dirty secrets of the Church”
You are a Bart Ehrman clone. It is truly sad that you or your church or school has not educated you even on the most basic facts of the NT textual tradition.
I would advise you to cease speaking with Muslims since you undermine the reliability of the text. I would direct you to one of the most noted Christian apologists today who has debated many Muslims on the textual reliability of the NT BIble. He has demolished their arguments in every debate. His name is J. White. I also blog with him at his ministry site: http://www.aomin.org/
You wrote:
“Do you know how many Spirit-filled Christians abandon Christianity once they start attending seminary? Do you know that most of the translators and scholars who translate & publish the Bibles you read don’t even believe in a single word that is written in them?”
This is a bold face lie. First, if a Christian abandons Christianity when they get to seminary it is not because of the confidence in the textual material that is available to us. It is because of the like of people like yourself who undermine the text of the Bible with pet theories that mislead people, tremendously.
Also I read mostly the ESV, NET, and the NAS. These translators do in fact believe what they translated. Your statement is nothing less than defamation.
Your understanding of Greek linguistics is so convoluted.
For example you said,
“No, no, Alan K. Greek does not work like Aramaic or Hebrew it is not a Semitic language. Greek is a very specific language, even more so than English that’s why it’s the language of Science, Medicine & Mathematics. Very few Greek words have more than one meaning.”
You have to be kidding me?
Most Greek words have more than one meaning. Are you even remotely familiar with any New Testament Greek lexicons. Do you have a copy of BDAG which is what _every_ NT Greek scholar uses as the most authoritative lexicon? Have you studied Greek linguistics formally? What monographs on Koine Greek have you read in the past year?
You said,
“And then there are the variants between the mss, and I don’t mean spelling errors or slips of the scribe’s pen, I mean where one verse reads one way in one mss and a different way in another (eg: burn/boast in 1 Cor. 13:3). Tell me where did those variants come from? Which reading is the original?”
I am very familiar with the Greek MSS tradition. As I have noted above I have studied this subject formally. How on earth you can leap from the fact that there are variants to Aramaic originals is wishful thinking.
Your next statement belies your errors:
“That is exactly what the Greek NT sounds like when you hear it being read, just like the LXX which we all know is translated from Hebrew & Aramaic, there is no difference.”
There is no grammatical differences between the LXX and the NT Greek. That is demonstrably in error in your Greek philology. Since you have no knowledge of LXX Greek or NT Greek (you must be getting your statements from obscure Internet sites). I just direct you to a standard LXX grammar, _Grammar of Septuagint Greek_. Any first year Greek student who reads the LXX and the NT Greek sees the salient syntactical differences between these two bodies of literature.
You wrote:
“What about the word galkolivano in Revelation 1:15? Can you find it in any Greek literature outside the Greek Bible? I can’t and I’ll tell you why - this word doesn’t exist in the Greek language, it’s an invented word.”
Um… how is that suppose to prove that Revelation is originally Aramaic we are not told. But if you were familiar with Greek literature you would know that authors would combine words together to describe a concept that did not have a ready to use word. Paul did this in particular. I am writing a book at the moment and I already have about a dozen new words.
You wrote:
“Greek words are translated from the original Aramaic Jesus spoke, which means they’re not the words that actually proceeded from his mouth”
This is not the same as a witness to what Jesus said translating it and writing it down in Greek. And further, I don’t doubt at all that there were collections of his sayings written down in Aramaic, whereby, for example, Matthew using them to write his Greek gospel.
You wrote:
“Yes I also have BibleWorks and I also did that word search. You do know that the LXX is a translation right? You did know that there is no Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word olam didn’t you?”
Ah! the fallacy of equivocation. It is you sir, you claimed that ge could not mean entire earth. The issue was not that the LXX is a translation. You claimed that ge could not mean “entire earth,” and I documented thoroughly that the translators of the LXX clearly used that term in that sense. Now you are backtracking.
You wrote:
“there is no concrete evidence that Luke was Greek or even that he was a gentile, all we know about him was that he was born in Syrian Antioch.”
Here are some facts:
Theophilus was a Greek, not Jewish, which is why he has to explain traditions and words for a Greek. Here is one example of many: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.”
Jesus lived and grew up in a multilingual culture. It is very likely that he worked in a Greek city in Galilee and would have learned Greek as well as his Aramaic.
There is evidence that Luke was Greek. Further, Luke’s Greek is in the high literary and rhetorician of Greek, not Aramaic.
The book of the Revelation is written to seven churches in Asia. All the seven churches were in Greek cities. John was exiled on a Greek island. He wrote to people who were Greek. There is no reason why he would have written it in any other language.
Paul grew up in a Greek city and would have been fluent in Greek, which is why one of the reasons God sent him to the Greek world to spread the gospel.
His letters were sent to Greek speaking Churches and individuals. Timothy’s father was a Greek and he grew up in a Greek speaking region. Paul even asked him to stay with Greek speaking believers.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it proves sufficient that your claims are ludricous and without any support. It may work on your benighted audience, but not on those who understand these matters.
Alan
June 7th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Mitchell,
Nice try. That text is hardly relevant to the Antichrist’s ruling context, not to mention reading Daniel 11:41 back into the Revelation passages that have global scope to its context. I have read thousands of pages of your position. I will begin to have discourse with again once you take the time and actually read some primary literature on my position. Thank you.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Mitchell,
Addendum:
Your argument is fundamentally anachronistic. You are projecting your modern knowledge of the existence of global nations into the ancient concept that the human race subsisted basically in the Near East, Africa, and Europe.
In Genesis 1:1, for example, where the LXX translates ge as earth, when Israel read or heard this text, they had only limited knowledge and would have included their limited scope of the world. But from our knowledge viewpoint, we know that the earth contains much more than the ancients were aware of it.
Or take for example:
“Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, (8) and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.” (Rev 13:7-8).
When the believers in the seven churches read this, they would have thought that “every tribe, people, etc” included their limited knowledge of their viewpoint. But we have the vantage point today to know that Christ’s redemption goes beyond the peoples of the Greco-Roman world and their peripheral nations.
So it is anachronistic to require that the Day of the Lord’s wrath will be limited in scope geographically to Israel and surrounding nations, as well as Antichrist’s orbit of ruling.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Hi Alan, there are no trick questions and I am fully aware that Rom 10:18 it is not related to the AC, but my questions are very simple. Can you please answer for me whether or not you believe that “ge” in Romans 10:18 is referring to the literal planet? With respect to Daniel 11:41, how can the Antichrist rule over every tribe, nation and tongue if even just one nation — in this case Jordan — is able to escape his hand? Do you really believe that Egypt and Jordan are the only nations on the earth that will resist Antichrist if he is fighting wars right up until Armageddon?
After all is said and done, it should be increasingly apparent that verses such as Revelation 13:7 are examples of a figure of speech that the Bible uses quite often known as synecdoche. What we should all strive to attain here is truth, not simply reasons to defend a pop-theology presupposition. Here are other unrelated examples from Scripture to show how God-inspired authors used figures of speech:
Luke 2:1-3 “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that ALL THE WORLD should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And ALL went to be taxed, every one into his own city.”
Mark 1:5, “And there went out unto him ALL the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were ALL baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.”
Daniel 2:36-38, “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; in your hands he has placed mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them ALL. You are that head of gold.”
Ezra 1:2, “Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD Elohim of heaven hath given me ALL the kingdoms of the earth;”
Col 1:23, “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to EVERY CREATURE WHICH IS UNDER HEAVEN; whereof I Paul am made a minister.”
Did Caesar literally tax the whole planet? Did Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus literally rule over the entire globe? Was every single last person in all of Judea and Jerusalem baptized in the Jordan river? Was the gospel preached to frogs, lizards and crickets? The answer to all of these is obviously no.
As such, it would not be prudent to dismiss the contention that Revelation 13:7-8 is not meant to be taken in a wooden literal sense, especially when “ge” can very easily mean anything but the whole literal earth, as Romans 10:18 shows. In light of the multitude of Scriptures regarding the Antichrist and his actions, his reactions, the fact that he is unable to subjugate Jordan under his control, the fact that his coalition consists of only ten nations, the fact that he is troubled by news out of the east and the north and is fighting wars right up until Armageddon, and the fact that he and his followers SPECIFICALLY are the object of God’s judgments during the trumpets/bowls leads me to come to only one conclusion: he is not the “all-powerful” global dictator that pop-theology has made him out to be.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Since I have argued that both gē and oikoumenē do include a global meaning in its semantic range (and quite frequently at that), and particularly in the global scope of the thrust of Revelation, I find it interesting that there is an instance of kosmos in Revelation that refers to the beast’s kingdom:
“Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.”” (Rev 11:15).
This is in the context of the seventh trumpet being blown and the celebration of God’s kingdom over the kingdom of the world.
If anyone tries to argue that this victory is over another kingdom not the “Beast’s kingdom,” demonstrates for everyone to see how encrusted they are to the notion that the Beast’s reign is only limited to a particular region.
I look forward to the creative exegetical acrobatics and leaps to explain away this one.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
You should know better than that Alan.
This is referring to the end of Daniel’s 70th week when the Millennial Reign is about to begin, and all kingdoms of the “kosmos” become the kingdoms of God.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Mitchell,
Once again. You would not be asking half of your questions if you would read Prewrath literature.
Second, “all” frequently does not mean literally “all.” For example, God did not die for every single person who has ever lived. He died for his sheep, which includes all nations and tribes. God does not desire literally for all to be saved. See my exegesis of 1 Tim 2:4.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3018
It is the context that determines what “all” means and citing passages that have nothing to do with the relevant texts are, well…irrelevant.
And finally, you seem to have a blind spot. You reason that since previous beast empires were limited to a particular region, a future Antichrist empire must be limited as well.
I suppose according to your reasoning a limited region will be deceived by this action: “fire comes down from heaven in front of people and, by the signs he was permitted to perform on behalf of the beast, he deceived those who live on the earth.
The tenor of Antichrist’s reach in Revelation is global.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Mitchell,
I leave it up to you to explain away this text! It is does say “all kingdoms”! The text does not have “all”; and it is singular, not plural; and it has a definite article noting a particular kingdom.
Your digging that hole deeper. Cut your losses while you can
June 7th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Another problem for the “limited region” view is that Paul warned the Thessalonians of the coming Antichrist and his persecution, thus his exhortation to stay faithful.
And where was that Church located? That’s right…in Europe!
Mitchell, I’ll leave it up to you to explain that Antichrist rule will not really reach Europe.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
I have created a dynamic article for this topic:
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/2009/06/more_problems_for_the_view_that_antichri.php
June 7th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Hi Alan, you can believe it is global if you wish, that is your right, and I understand that it is a prerequisite to the pre-trib and pre-wrath rapture positions. In light of the whole of Scripture, however, I do not believe the AC’s rule is global and believe that Revelation 13:7-8 is another example of a synecdoche, a common figure of speech.
Alan asks, “I suppose according to your reasoning a limited region will be deceived by this action: “fire comes down from heaven in front of people and, by the signs he was permitted to perform on behalf of the beast, he deceived those who live on the earth.”
“He deceived those who live on the earth.” Sounds pretty absolute, doesn’t it? Are not the false miracles and deceptions of Islam already primarily regional? We both know that you and I will be here on the earth as will many other saints and I think that we will likely be able to witness any such events on the global media (whatever they may be), so will we be deceived, too, by these “lying wonders” since “he deceived those who live on the earth”? I can say with certainty that not everyone will believe in these false “miracles.” First, people like you and I know the Truth and will share it with others, and if they are “lying wonders” I think many of us will be able to figure out the truth or rationalize how those “lying wonders” were done. An Islamic Antichrist’s main audiences will be his Islamic followers, and they will be the primary group to fall for his false “miracles.” They already believe false miracles today as it is, such as “The Recitation” of the Qur’an, or the ascension of Mohammed into Heaven. Second, the Two Witnesses will oppose everything that the Antichrist does and I believe they will be able to perform even greater things which are NOT “lying wonders” in plain view of everyone (Rev 11:5-7). As witnesses they will proclaim to everyone who listens who Antichrist is and/or lead those who are willing to listen to the Truth. The way that I look at it is this — those who follow Antichrist will believe what they want to believe, many will even look for “signs and wonders” in order to believe that he is who they want him to be and will accept what Antichrist and the False Prophet tells them, even though they are fed nothing but lies and deceptions. The whole Middle Eastern world will be deceived by and large (as they already are), but there will be many who will not be.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Alan says, “I leave it up to you to explain away this text! It is does say “all kingdoms”! The text does not have “all”; and it is singular, not plural; and it has a definite article noting a particular kingdom.”
Revelation 11:15
KJV, “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.”
NKJV, Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”
NIV, The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever.”
NASB, Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become {the kingdom} of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.”
YNG, And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, `The kingdoms of the world did become [those] of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign to the ages of the ages!’
Whether it is “kingdom” or “kingdoms” we still have the same result Alan — this world (kosmos) has become God’s. I think you’re stretching to find a reason why Antichrist’s rule is global. This verse does not work for you the way that you would like Alan.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Listing a hundred English translations won’t make a difference. You have to do a textual critical analysis and it is clear that the KJV has the inferior reading. The modern translations have the singular “kingdom” since it reflects the best and earliest manuscripts.
The plural of “kingdoms” comes from a 12th century manuscript! It crept into the inferior Byzantine textual tradition.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Now you are importing another kingdom into Revelation. In the context, there is the last expression of Satan working through the Beast’s kingdom against God’s kingdom. They are at war. God’s kingdom wins. And now that I have pointed out an example of in which kosmos is connected to the Beast’s kingdom, you insert a third kingdom to avoid the ramifications for your view. That is a classroom example of: eisegesis.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:46 am
I do not view it as eisegetical at all. The kingdom or kingdoms of this world (kosmos) tells me that it is referring to the earth as a whole, and it becomes God’s. Think about this. Remember when Satan tempted Christ, telling Jesus that He could have “all the kingdoms of the world” if Jesus would bow down to worship Satan?
Luke 4:5-7: The devil led him up to a high mountain and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and power, FOR IT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME, and I can give it to anyone I wish. So if you worship me, it will all be yours.”
When ever Jesus encountered liars or hypocrites did He not condemned them for being what they were? Here however Jesus did not dispute Satan’s claim to all the kingdoms of the world and call him a liar, but only rebuked Satan by telling him that only God is to be worshiped.
1 John 5:19: We know that we are of God, and the whole world (kosmos) lies under the sway of the wicked one.
Compare the following:
1 Cor 15:22-24: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s AT HIS COMING. Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom (basileia G932) to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down ALL RULE AND ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER.
Revelation 11:15 The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: “The kingdom (basileia G932) of the world (kosmos G2889) has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever.”
Luke 4:5-7: The devil led him up to a high mountain and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms (basileia G932) of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and power, FOR IT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME, and I can give it to anyone I wish. So if you worship me, it will all be yours.”
Again, Revelation 11:15 is referring to the world as a whole, not just the Beast’s kingdom, and in the end we have the same conclusion. This world (kosmos) is taken from Satan and given to God.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:45 am
That will not work. You are doing everything you can to disconnect it from the context of the Beast’s Kingdom in Revelation and Christ’s defeat of that kingdom.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
The text has a specific kingdom in mind, not different kingdoms. I have pointed out that it is not kingdoms (plural); it is a singular kingdom in mind, and the 800 pound gorilla-kingdom in Revelation that you want to ignore is the Beast’s kingdom. I understand why you want to ignore this salient context because it completely undermines your premise that Antichrist will not have global rule.
Not only is it fallacious to conflate the plural and the singular, but I can tell you that the definite article is highly significant indicating a particular kingdom in that context. Daniel Wallace writes in his noted grammar _Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics_, “there is no more important aspect of Greek grammar than the article to help shape our understanding of the thought and theology of the NT writers” (208).
Now you can ignore these linguistics realities, but it does not help your case at all.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Instead of isolating a single verse I prefer to consult the whole of Scripture in its context, so respectfully Alan, I disagree.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Isolating a single verse? Um what do you call the context of the beast’s kingdom in Revelation? And I noticed that you did not respond to those linguistics realities, but we all know why.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Alan K said:
Alex,
Sir, your statements are most disturbing and fallacious. The fact that in your apologetics with Muslims you would intentionally undermine the Greek textual tradition is most disturbing, indeed.
Alex says:
I’m not intentionally undermining the Greek textual tradition and I don’t have to even if I wanted to, neither does any Muslim for that matter, it undermines itself. You just have to see the manuscripts - I’m telling it like is, I don’t believe in covering up information and lying to my brothers & sisters in Christ about how many Greek scribes tampered with the readings. I will expose the Greek textual tradition for what it is - warts and all. All Christians must know what these Greek mss really look like and what they really say - the unbelieving world certainly does.
Alan K:
From reading your material, you know next to nothing about the confidence we can have as Christians in the textual reliability of the Bible. I have studied formally at Harvard Divinity in specifically New Testament textual criticism, and I have written extensively on it. You sir, are completely ignorant and irresponsible by your statements.
Alex says:
Tell me what the little side note for Hebrews 1:3 in the Codex Vaticanus says. Translate it here for everyone to see!
Alan K wrote:
You wrote:
“I do a lot of apologetic work, especially inter-religious dialogue with Muslims and they love nothing more than to tell me that the Church deliberately destroyed the original words of Jesus and replaced them with what they wanted Him to say. And they have no problem digging up all the dirty secrets of the Church”
You are a Bart Ehrman clone. It is truly sad that you or your church or school has not educated you even on the most basic facts of the NT textual tradition.
Alex says:
Your credentials don’t impress me. The Greek NT textual tradition is the tradition of my people and my church, no one knows it better than we do. Even the Greek Orthodox Church admits that the Greek of the NT is unnatural.
Alan K says:
I would advise you to cease speaking with Muslims since you undermine the reliability of the text. I would direct you to one of the most noted Christian apologists today who has debated many Muslims on the textual reliability of the NT BIble. He has demolished their arguments in every debate. His name is J. White. I also blog with him at his ministry site: http://www.aomin.org/
Alex says:
Once again I never said that I’m undermining the text, I’m calling it what really is - a translation from Aramaic with many errors, most of which are honest mistranslations, after all Greek is completely different to Aramaic & Hebrew, but error is error.
And yes the Muslims do like to tell me that the Church deliberately destroyed the original words of Jesus, even they know that He spoke Aramaic. And Muslim scholars can get access to NT mss just as easily as Christian scholars, they can also see the revisions and at times deliberate tamperings with the readings.
Once I switched the Peshitta suddenly my opponents are at loss, yes they still insist that the Church corrupted the Bible but they can’t pull out a Peshitta mss and show me where, but they can do so almost any Greek mss.
Alan K wrote:
You wrote:
“Do you know how many Spirit-filled Christians abandon Christianity once they start attending seminary? Do you know that most of the translators and scholars who translate & publish the Bibles you read don’t even believe in a single word that is written in them?”
This is a bold face lie. First, if a Christian abandons Christianity when they get to seminary it is not because of the confidence in the textual material that is available to us. It is because of the like of people like yourself who undermine the text of the Bible with pet theories that mislead people, tremendously.
Alex says:
I have met and conversed with many employees from the United Bible Societies, as well as employees of publishing houses like Zondervan & Thomas Nelson. Most of the translators and scholars who work there believe in evolution, that there is no God and that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children with her.
Alan K wrote:
Also I read mostly the ESV, NET, and the NAS. These translators do in fact believe what they translated. Your statement is nothing less than defamation.
Alex says:
I said most not all, and I’m referring to scholars all over the world not just the US. Yes there are many scholars that do believe but there are many more that don’t, that is the truth.
Alan K said:
Your understanding of Greek linguistics is so convoluted.
For example you said,
“No, no, Alan K. Greek does not work like Aramaic or Hebrew it is not a Semitic language. Greek is a very specific language, even more so than English that’s why it’s the language of Science, Medicine & Mathematics. Very few Greek words have more than one meaning.”
You have to be kidding me? Most Greek words have more than one meaning.
Alex says:
Rubbish, they don’t, any professor of linguistics will tell you that. Astronomer, pathologist, pi, orthodontist, ect., ect. all these scientific, medical & mathematical terms are Greek; termonology for these subjects needs to be very precise that’s why Greek is suitable but a language like Hebrew is not, because it’s not specific enough. In some cases there are even a couple of Greek words which subdivide a concept into degrees (eg: the concept of love has 3 Greek words), you don’t know what you’re talking about!
Alan K says:
Are you even remotely familiar with any New Testament Greek lexicons. Do you have a copy of BDAG which is what _every_ NT Greek scholar uses as the most authoritative lexicon? Have you studied Greek linguistics formally? What monographs on Koine Greek have you read in the past year?
Alex says:
Alan I am a native Greek speaker, I speak this language every day, and have done so all the days of my life. I have studied modern Greek literature, the Greek Bible & ancient Greek writings both classical & contemporary, I can read all these things and understand them without a lexicon or dictionary. I don’t need a lexicon to understand my own language k? I know how the Greek language works both past & present ok, I know how all Greek words were used and how they are used today.
I am telling you that the Greek of the NT doesn’t even resemble that of ancient Alexandrian colliquial letters written to school-boys. Greek literature doesn’t feature Casus Pendens, Greeks do not say “answered and said”, Greeks do not begin all their sentences with “and”, the Greek word for strong drink is not “sikera”, the Greek word for offering is not “qurbana”, ect., ect., ect. Greeks do NOT talk this, Semites do!
The only Greek writings the Greek NT resembles are those that are translated from Semitic sources like the LXX.
Alan K says:
You said,
“And then there are the variants between the mss, and I don’t mean spelling errors or slips of the scribe’s pen, I mean where one verse reads one way in one mss and a different way in another (eg: burn/boast in 1 Cor. 13:3). Tell me where did those variants come from? Which reading is the original?”
I am very familiar with the Greek MSS tradition. As I have noted above I have studied this subject formally. How on earth you can leap from the fact that there are variants to Aramaic originals is wishful thinking.
Alex says:
Variants to Aramaic originals? PROOVE IT!!!
Alan K said:
Your next statement belies your errors:
“That is exactly what the Greek NT sounds like when you hear it being read, just like the LXX which we all know is translated from Hebrew & Aramaic, there is no difference.”
There is no grammatical differences between the LXX and the NT Greek. That is demonstrably in error in your Greek philology. Since you have no knowledge of LXX Greek or NT Greek (you must be getting your statements from obscure Internet sites). I just direct you to a standard LXX grammar, _Grammar of Septuagint Greek_. Any first year Greek student who reads the LXX and the NT Greek sees the salient syntactical differences between these two bodies of literature.
Alex says:
Any native Greek speaker from the Ph.D. professor to the lay Bible reader can see that the grammar of both is not Greek grammar - it’s foreign.
Alan K says:
You wrote:
“What about the word galkolivano in Revelation 1:15? Can you find it in any Greek literature outside the Greek Bible? I can’t and I’ll tell you why - this word doesn’t exist in the Greek language, it’s an invented word.”
Um… how is that suppose to prove that Revelation is originally Aramaic we are not told. But if you were familiar with Greek literature you would know that authors would combine words together to describe a concept that did not have a ready to use word. Paul did this in particular. I am writing a book at the moment and I already have about a dozen new words.
Alex says:
And if you were familiar with all Greek literature including extra-Biblical (i.e. you can actually read and understand without the help of a lexicon), you would know that this oddity is only present in Greek texts which are translated from Semitic sources. Paul was a native Aramaic speaker btw, he said to Jews (in Aramaic) just before he was arrested in Jerusalem that the voice which spoke to him from heaven spoke to him in Aramaic!
Alan K says:
You wrote:
“Greek words are translated from the original Aramaic Jesus spoke, which means they’re not the words that actually proceeded from his mouth”
This is not the same as a witness to what Jesus said translating it and writing it down in Greek. And further, I don’t doubt at all that there were collections of his sayings written down in Aramaic, whereby, for example, Matthew using them to write his Greek gospel.
Alex says:
Sorry but my exact words are the exact words that came out of my mouth, in whatever language I spoke them, same goes for God Almighty and His Son. And where Matthews gospel is concerned, even the Church Fathers agree that the original is Aramaic not Greek.
Jesus’ followers feared God with all their being, do you know how carefully Jews (and Assyrians) handle what they consider the word of God? They will not even touch their Bibles without washing their hands. The Apostles made dam sure that they recorded EXACTLY what they heard theri Master say - that is the Semitic mindset - they are perfectionists.
Do you know what a Masorah is? Did you know that the only textual tradition that has a Masorah besides the Hebrew Tanakh is the Peshitta NT? Now why would the Jewish and Assyrian scribes count every single word they copied from a manuscript? Because they knew that they were copying the original words in the original language. Why is this feature absent in the Greek textual traditions? Because there not point in doing this when translating into another language because the word count will never match up, especially not with languages so different as Greek & Hebrew or Aramaic because the Greek vocablury is much larger, why else do you think they had to divide the books of Samuel, Kings & Chronicles into 2 books?
Alan K says:
You wrote:
“Yes I also have BibleWorks and I also did that word search. You do know that the LXX is a translation right? You did know that there is no Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word olam didn’t you?”
Ah! the fallacy of equivocation. It is you sir, you claimed that ge could not mean entire earth. The issue was not that the LXX is a translation. You claimed that ge could not mean “entire earth,” and I documented thoroughly that the translators of the LXX clearly used that term in that sense. Now you are backtracking.
Alex says:
I’m sorry what? Yes I said that “ge” cannot mean “the whole world”, and I explained that in many of those verses (like in Genesis 1:1) “ge” was the wrong choice of word - it’s a mistranslation - an error. Find me one example in Greek literature, written by a Greek, that is NOT translated from a Semitic source which applies “ge” in a global context.
Alan K said:
You wrote:
“there is no concrete evidence that Luke was Greek or even that he was a gentile, all we know about him was that he was born in Syrian Antioch.”
Here are some facts:
Theophilus was a Greek, not Jewish, which is why he has to explain traditions and words for a Greek. Here is one example of many: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.”
Alex says:
Oh so you assume that all gentiles were Greeks? What about Acts 2:9-11 (also written by Luke), it says Jews and proselytes, i.e. gentile converts to Judaism - many languages were represented not just Greek.
And btw just because someone had a Greek name it doesn’t mean they were Greek. Andrew and Philip are Greek names and they weren’t Greeks, plenty of modern Assyrians, Russians, Georgians & Armenians have Greek names but they are not Greek and cannot speak Greek.
Alan K said:
Jesus lived and grew up in a multilingual culture. It is very likely that he worked in a Greek city in Galilee and would have learned Greek as well as his Aramaic.
Alex says:
Umm…I woudn’t call 1st century Israel multicultural, this is not supported by either the Talmud or NT. Peter was scoffed at when we visited Cornelius, socializing with “uncirmcumcised gentiles” was severely frowned upon, and the Pharisees expanded on this in the Talmud.
As for the argument that Jesus and His disciples “had to know Greek” in order to “trade”, is just plain ridiculous. Go to any small Middle Eastern town or village and what the chances that the local carpenter or fisherman, who probably didn’t even go to highscholl can speak anything other than Arabic/Kurdish/Farsi/Turkish? I bet you’ll immediately whip out your phrasebook and start making hand gestures because he didn’t understand the English question you just asked him! Carpentary and fishing were meanial jobs back then and illeteracy was much more widespread than it is today.
This is the thing about popular western scholarship, there’s all this careful wording and lots of “maybe”, “probably” and “presumably”, but as soon as I ask for actual evidence that I can see with my own eyes, all I ever get is some reference to some other scholar’s opinion, which only means more careful wording (in an attempt to hide the lack of evidence), “maybe”, “probably” and “presumably” - a lot of assumptions not facts.
Alan K said:
There is evidence that Luke was Greek. Further, Luke’s Greek is in the high literary and rhetorician of Greek, not Aramaic.
Alex says;
Like what? High literacy? *Chuckles*, Luke’s Greek writings can’t even compete with those of Josephus, nevermind Aristotle or Plato.
Alan K said:
The book of the Revelation is written to seven churches in Asia. All the seven churches were in Greek cities. John was exiled on a Greek island. He wrote to people who were Greek. There is no reason why he would have written it in any other language.
Alex says:
If you read very carefully all those letters are addressed to the “messengers” or “angels” of those churches. In the synagogue, the leader who spoke prayers and led the worship was called the “angel” or “messenger of the assembly”, and sometimes also called the “speaker,” (see Kitto, vol II, p. 806, Burder, p. 387, Moseley, p.9). That is what the 1st churches were - synagogues, assemblies of mostly Jewish believers (too many examples in Acts). While not all the synagogue attendents were Aramaic speakers, the leaders (most were either from Israel or educated in Jerusalem) were fluent in both Hebrew & Aramaic just as they are today. The Scriptures were chanted in the original languages and then verbally interpreted for the people in the language/languages they spoke. There was no reason for John (or any other NT author) to translate their Gospel/Epistle themselves as they were writing to an individual (a church leader) who could understand their language.
As for the fact that Patmos was a Greek island, so what?
Alan K says:
Paul grew up in a Greek city and would have been fluent in Greek, which is why one of the reasons God sent him to the Greek world to spread the gospel.
Alex says:
Actually Paul grew up in Jerusalem not Tarsus, he says so himself:
Acts 22:3 “I am a Jewish man and I was born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but I was educated in this city beside the feet of Gamaliel and was instructed perfectly in the law of our fathers. And I was zealous of God, even as also all of you are.
Rabbinical Jews began their education under the age of 12, Paul actually spent little of his childhood in Tarsus and most of it and his early adulthood in Jerusalem. And while the NT says that Paul could speak Greek that does not necessarily mean that he could write it, learning to speak a language is one thing, learning it’s literature is an entirely different matter and Greek is nothing like Aramaic. Ever since the incident with Antiochus Ephiphanes most Palestinian Jews wanted nothing to do with anything Greek, especially the Pharisees (again refer to the Talmud). The Pharisees didn’t go out of their way either learn or teach Greek or even speak it, they would only do so if they felt they absolutely had to. And Josephus writings confirm this too.
Alan k said:
His letters were sent to Greek speaking Churches and individuals.
Alex says:
I already answered this one above.
Alan K said:
Timothy’s father was a Greek and he grew up in a Greek speaking region. Paul even asked him to stay with Greek speaking believers.
Alex says:
No, Timothy’s father was an Aramean:
Acts 16:1 And he arrived at the city [of] Derbe and of Lystra. And there was a certain disciple there, whose name [was] Timothy, the son of a certain faithful Judean woman and his father was an Aramean. (Peshitta)
And before you protest and say that this statement in the Peshitta is false, watch this:
1 Timoth 3:16 (Peshitta):
w’sherirayt rab (and truly great)
haw arza hela d’kanota (is this divine mystery of righteousness)
d’atgli b’besra (it is revealed in the flesh)
w’atzaddaq b’rokh (justified in the Spirit)
w’atkhazi l’malaka (seen by angels)
w’atkeraz beyt amah (preached to the gentiles)
w’athaymin b’almah (believed on in the world)
w’astalaq b’shubkha (and received up into glory)
As you can see it’s a poem, and the meaning of this poem is just amazing, from Ruach Qadim by Andrew Gabriel Roth:
QUOTE
To begin with, two words for “righteousness” are used, one in the last word of line 2 (kanota) and the other in the first word of line 4 (atzaddaq). Kanota is clearly reminiscent of kahna (preast), even though their roots are slightly different (kan / kahn). Futhermore, the last word of line 1 is rab (great/high), and so the way the text lines up is: rab kanota/kahna (high priest)! The other word for “righteousness”, atzaddaq, is also deliberately placed in the same manner, since right below it is the word malaka. Now, in this case malaka means “angel, messenger”, however, it also is spelled and pronounced almost indentically as malak (king). Reverse the words and what we get is:
Malak + Atzaddaq = Melchisedec
a deep poetic pattern contrasting the Levitical rab kahna (high priest) with Melchisedec, whose priestly line Messiah is supposed to represent!
Between these placements is a toggle phrase, Atgli b’besra (revealed in the flesh). Not only does the word gali mean “reveal”, but it is also a homonym for Galilee, where Messiah was “revealed in the flesh”!
The poetic patterns continue with some clever rhymes. First, there are four lines in a row that end in “ah”: l’malaka - amah - b’almah - b’shubkha. Other word matches are equally striking:
(seen) Atkhazi Atkeraz (preached)
(house of peoples) Beyt ammah B’almah (in the earth/land)
The last pair is particularly noteworthy, because of this prophecy:
I am going to take the Israelite people (ammah) from among the nations (goyim/gentiles) they have gone to, and gather them from every quarter, and bring them back to their own land (almah). I will make them a single nation (goy) in the land (almah). Ezekiel 37:21-22
Now granted, there are some dialectical differences between the Tanakh and the Aramaic Peshitta (ammah = am; almah = eretz), but these are still, for all intents and purposes, the exact same words and concepts. Finally, the last four lines also flow together in an almost melodic fashion, as even a rudimentary attempt to sound them out reveals.
In the end then, we see an amazing composition in two parts.
The first half shows us that Paul is very capable of packing a great deal of Jewish symbolism and hidden meanings in a handful or words. Once this significant feat is accomplished, then Paul moves on to delivering a masterpiece of rhyme, diction and meter for the remainder of the verse.
END QUOTE
There’s no way that Timothy could’ve understood this unless he was a native Aramaic speaker. Now please tell me how the hell that poem can posssibly be a translation from Greek??? The Greek version is pure prose, and not a hint of hidden imagery like the Aramaic version - you’d never suspect that 1 Timothy 3:16 is a poem in the Greek version.
Alan K said:
This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it proves sufficient that your claims are ludricous and without any support. It may work on your benighted audience, but not on those who understand these matters.
Alan
Alex says:
And I have refuted all your points above, now answer the questions I asked you above.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I need to add this new refutation to my list.
“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18 ESV).
John warns that Antichrist is coming.
“and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world [kosmos] already.” (1 John 4:3 ESV).
Here John notes that the precursor to the coming of Antichrist is the spirit of the Antichrist. We are told that the spirit of Antichrist already has a reaching kosmos. The Greek uses the terms nyn (now) and ēdē (already) stressing his presence now, which is significant because it is indicating that a future Antichrist will have kosmos affect, but his effect is “now…already” kosmos.
I.e., Someone does not have to wait to see the Antichrist in the kosmos, his spirit is already in the kosmos.
If someone argues that Antichrist’s future presence will not be kosmos, then they are ignoring John’s combination and stress of these two words to indicate that Antichrist influence is already kosmos.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Alex,
You are the proverbial person in which a little knowledge of Greek is dangerous. Or in your case, a little bit of Church History. I maintain that you are misleading God’s people by twisting historical and textual facts.
I have interacted voluminously in the past with folks as yourself who are bamboozled into the myth of original Aramaic originals. Thanks for your time.
p.s. If you want a superior language program, use Accordance, not BibleWorks.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Hi Alan, Revelation 11:15 is in the context of the eschaton and should immediately bring to mind 1 Cor. 15:22-24. Do you agree with that? What kingdom specifically is put to an end at the coming of Christ? The kingdom of Antichrist, sure, but there is a larger picture in view here. To assert that Rev 11:15 is only speaking of Antichrist’s kingdom is not what I believe the text to be referring to. See Matthew 12:26. The kingdom of this world (Satan’s) will become the kingdom of our Lord.
As for the “linguistics realities”, I do not see the issues that you contend, and I don’t believe that it is particularly beneficial to the discussion to accuse folks here of being “convoluted”, “fallacious”, “uneducated”, “ignorant”, or “playing fast and loose with Scripture”, etc. If anything, it is only turning people off to your position all together. I say that from one brother to another.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I have to chime in her as well Alan. I’ve only been able to catch snippets of all that has been discussed here over the past few weeks. But while you seemed to begin with some measure of potential here in terms of adding to the discussion, you have quickly allowed your words to devolve into elitism, condescension and downright arrogance. I was actually hopeful with regard to your forthcoming book, but at this point, your character has soured any interest I may have had. I’m sorry that you chose this approach. Name-calling and arrogance never wins anyone and certainly does nothing for the forthcoming Kingdom that you claim to know so much about.
Blessings, Joel
June 8th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Mitchell,
Ever since this discussion began with trying to explain ge by going outside of the context of Revelation and now trying to explain away the defeat of the beast’s kingdom by appealing to other texts, it demonstrates the lack of support.
Of course you do not want to see the “linguistic realities” since someone who has a theory to defend they will not want to see these linguistic facts and thus run away as quickly as possible to irrelevant texts to obfuscate the context.
By trying to pit another kingdom of the world against the climatic kingdom of the Satan-inspired kingdom is indicative of eisegesis. In my next post, I will be providing yet another example of connecting the kosmos to the Satan-inspired Beast kingdom.
If I believe a particular line of reasoning is convoluted then stating it and providing reasons for it is fine. I don’t just see your interpretation as little off, your entire hermeneutics is fundamentally flawed; hence the reason why you are filtering all these texts from a erroneous premise.
And it is indeed playing fast and loose with Scripture. Rodrigo says that folks like myself who believe that ge can have a global sense are “picking and choosing.” Where in reality it is he who was selectively picking and choosing, apparently thinking that his readers were not going to check out his claims. And that is not an isolated incident, he did this more than once, so it cannot be considered an “honest oversight.” I’d figured he would be eager to clear the air with his reasons for selectively, but I overestimated him.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I agree with Mitchell, and Joel that the AC will never rule the entire globe, in his book “Antichrist: Prince from Iraq” Russell Noel Redden gives this reason:
QUOTE
Consider the stubbornness and arrogance of mankind. Consider�ow we all fight over our own opinions. It is fantasy that Christians,�uslims, Buddhists, Animists, and people from every religion on the�ace of the earth will somehow discard�housands�of years of�tradition and follow after one man who claims to be God. It is not�ogical that the�ajority of people from different ethnic backgrounds�ill follow after someone who is not part of their own culture.�oreover, some religions do not even believe in a�ersonal God, but� “force.” Suddenly, are they going to discard their beliefs and follow�fter someone who�ersonally claims to be god?
END QUOTE
God is not going give the honor of ruling His creation to anyone but His Son. No one but Jesus will ever establish a “global kingdom”. The reason why there are so many different languages & cultures is precisely to prevent mankind from uniting under any man but Messiah.
Satan cannot please everyone at once that’s why he’s manufactured so many different cults - because there are so many different tastes. Satan is a creature, he is not all power and he hasn’t been able to unite mankind under one cult in the last 6000 years so it’s fantasy to assume that he’ll be able to accomplish this in just 7 years. His only option is to back his “wining horse” and we all know which cult that is.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Joel,
Your tremendous prejudice is apparent here. What is dishonoring to the Lord? Is it stating that a line of reasoning is fallacious; or playing quick and loose with Scripture?
What is dishonoring to the Lord? Stating that I have a “pick and choose” approach where in fact I have documented that it was the other way around?
What is souring Joel is the fact that individuals can call themselves believers and undermine the very Biblical text that we have by invoking the myth “Aramaic originals”; and others who are so prideful that they cannot admit correction on documented facts. That is not kingdom-like ethics.
Calling out bad argumentation, especially repeated errors as fallacious will only offend the guilty.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Alan K will you tell everyone what this means:
αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφε τον παλαιον μς μεταποιει
Or should I do the honor of translating this little sidenote from the Codex Vaticanus? Gotta love Accordance.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I find it odd that Joel allows you to post here Alex. I don’t think he realizes how pernicious your beliefs are to the Christian faith and its foundation of the Biblical text.
Attacking the textual integrity of the Biblical text is permissible for Joel; but heaven forbid that I point out bad argumentation. Good grief.
Here is a post on whether Antichrist’s rule will be regional or global, and you are peddling your Aramaic-original myth by citing a variant that is so completely irreverent to the textual integrity of Hebrews.
It is indicative of the utter lack of discernment here. Truly sad.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Ok Alan since you won’t translate it I guess I’ll have to:
αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφε τον παλαιον μς μεταποιει
And this is what it means:
FOOL AND NAVE, CAN’T YOU LEAVE THE OLD READING ALONE AND NOT ALTER IT
This is not a variant Alan, it’s scribal note on the side of the page containing the 1st chapter. This is clearly a rebuke by the editor to the copyist for deliberately changing the reading which is a SIN.
No this doesn’t call the integrity of Hebrews into question but it does call the integrity of the Codex Vaticanus into question.
You and the rest of the scholarship world tell us that these early Alexandrian mss are “superior” but when we actually take a look at them this is what we find - admissions of deliberate alterations. I think of the story of how the other “most prized” mss Codex Sinaiticus was found in a trash can and the monastery was planning to use it as fuel for a fire. Now why would they treat it like junk unless they thought it was junk???
What I am doing is not dangerous, what you and most other scholars are doing is - passing off garbage as the most accurate witness to the Apostolic writings and hiding these dirty little secrets from the rest of us. Why don’t you tell us the truth - what these mss really say? We have the right to know!
And isn’t it a wonder that Egypt (where these mss come from) was the birth place of gnosticism and monophytisim? These mss weren’t copied over and over because they were REJECTED. How can I put my faith in a text that was rejected by a church? If it’s not good enough for them then it’s not good enough for me either.
This is how I determine which mss tradition is best reflects the original: If the church treated it like Word of God with fear and reverence, not like a piece of junk.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Alan,
You said; “It may work on your benighted audience, but not on those who understand these matters.”
Hmmmm. “Benighted”? To the contrary, I have found most posters on this site to be in a pursuit of the truth, wherever it happens to be found. While many here may not have studied Divinity as you have, that gives you no license to insult them. And just so we all understand the level of insult you have heaped upon this forum, I offer the following;
Be-night-ed – adjective
1. Intellectually or morally ignorant; unenlightened: benighted ages of barbarism and superstition.
2. Over taken by darkness or night.
Synonyms:
1. backward, primitive, crude, uncultivated.
Alan, for the most part I enjoyed your scholarship and your contribution to this thread, and as a result there are additional items within this debate that I intend to pursue with further study. But Alex and Mitchell have also made some very good points, which I also intend to pursue. I imagine that many others who review this forum daily are doing the same, because we/they have done so on virtually ever other topic that has come down the pipe.
That doesn’t sound like a benighted audience to me.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Michael,
I was responding to Alex who posted a protracted comment about how the Greek text is not reliable with him positing the pernicious myth of Aramaic originals.
I did not respond to his first comments in this thread. Then I noticed no one was responding to his claims.
It is in that context that I said this comment. And Alex knows it himself that his audience is not trained in New Testament textual criticism (”benighted”). And I saw him taking advantage of readers here by his false claims about the Biblical text.
So what is so ironic is that I decided to jump in and begin to defend the integrity of your Bible since he was obviously taking advantage of the lack of knowledge on this subject that some have here.
But since you cannot appreciate that I was calling him on his assertions, then take over because…
I am out of here!
June 8th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Alex,
I’m sure that many of us in our “utter lack of discernment” would still like to hear your thoughts regarding the Greek contained in the Revelation. I think you have proven that your scholarship and your perspective is well-rooted.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Alan said, “Ever since this discussion began with trying to explain ge by going outside of the context of Revelation and now trying to explain away the defeat of the beast’s kingdom by appealing to other texts, it demonstrates the lack of support.”
Mitchell: Hi Alan, not only is the context of Revelation important when studying the kingdom of the Beast, so is every verse in Scripture that speaks of him and his kingdom. If we wish to gain the most accurate picture possible, is it not more wise to refer to the whole of Scripture rather than limit our understanding to just a few passages of text from Revelation?
2 Tim 3:16, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
Isa 28:10, “For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little.”
Acts 17:11, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
Failure to understand this and we run into the risk of making the Word of God say something that it does not intend to say.
Alan, “Of course you do not want to see the “linguistic realities” since someone who has a theory to defend they will not want to see these linguistic facts and thus run away as quickly as possible to irrelevant texts to obfuscate the context.”
Mitchell: I was at one time among those who believed that the Antichrist would rule the entire globe and every single person in it would be under his thumb (or die if they resisted) because that is what I was taught and assumed it to be true without question. It was in fact required for the pre-trib position that I was taught as well. So it gets repeated, retaught, rehashed, regurgitated and becomes one continuous cycle without being challenged. “If so and so teaches it, then it must be true, so I’ll believe it and teach it too…” seems to be a never-ending cycle. The more I read from Scripture however the more questions I began asking which challenged such presuppositions. I am thankful that folks like Joel and even Rodrigo and others such as “Brother Tommie” (http://www.americaisraelprophecy.com/notallnations.html) have taken the time to look into all Scriptures and flesh-out the most accurate picture that the Bible gives us, instead of repeating the “status-quo” pop-theology eschatology of Tim Lahey, Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey.
Alan, “By trying to pit another kingdom of the world against the climatic kingdom of the Satan-inspired kingdom is indicative of eisegesis.”
Mitchell: Perhaps you can explain what 1 Cor. 15:22-24 is referring to and why you believe it is unrelated to Revelation 11:15? Also, I would like to know if you view Romans 10:18 as referring to the literal planet?
June 8th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
For what it is worth, while I have not appreciated Alan’s approach toward those with whom he disagrees as I expressed, I am in full agreement with him with regard to the notion that the entire New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. The implications of whole Aramaic Primacy Theory as it is often referred to are IMO entirely destructive to the foundations of our faith. In brief, to claim that the whole of the NT was written in Aramaic is to essentially claim that we lost the NT and at best today possess a corrupted version. That said, the forum is largely unmoderated and rarely do I ban anyone, though occasionally I have to. Lately, I have barely been able to read 1/10 of the posts. So regarding Aramaic Primacy, there’s not tons of info about this online, but one fellow that seems to have put the time in found here:
http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/aramaicprimacy.html
June 8th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I just want to publicly apologize for my tone on this thread to Mitchell and others. Joel, you are correct, I should not have been uncharitable. We can be pointed at times when it is called for, but looking back at my comments, there were instances that I crossed the line.
I have exhausted my discussion on this subject here.
Thanks for the interaction.
Alan
June 8th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Apology accepted Alan. I wish you all the best.
In Christ,
Mitchell
June 8th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Hy everyone. I hope all of you are well.
Since I am not a full time theologian but rather a regular Joe who has to work 12 hours a day sometimes 7 days a week as a mere landscaper to bring a couple of hundred dollars home to feed my family, I do not have time to be reading blogs and be posting comments. As I took some time to read this today, I realized how much damage this article has done and I wish I had never written it. I apologise for my mistake in not giving the full definition of the word ge from the Strong’s which also included ‘’world.'’ That was a mistake on my part and I already added it to the article. I ask those of you to forgive me for this stupidity on my part.
I may be deleting the article from the web site due to the fact that this article has caused a lot of damage as brothers and sisters in the Lord deeply hurt each other trying to prove their point. It appears that we Christians tend to elevate ‘’Biblical exegesis'’ above AGAPE LOVE and that is too bad. We are not dealing with heresey here such as denying the deity of Christ and his work on the cross to pay for our salvation but with alternate views on eschatological matters. We are never going to fully agree on everything as far as prophecy in concerned and that is Ok. If this was an easy matter there would not be so much disagreement even among those so called scholars which I am millions of years away from becoming one. We are just a bunch of fallen human beings trying to understand what God has not fully revealed and we will only know in part until that which is perfect comes (1 Corinthians 13:9-10). It will take the Lord himself to teach us everything correctly, not human beings with degrees given by mere human institutions.
I hope we can all forgive each other for our mistakes and love one another as the Lord has taught us. If we know all mysteries of prophecy and have not love, we are nothing (1 Corinthians 13)
I will leave the article posted for a few more days so you can all see that I corrected the definition for the Greek word ge and then I will delete it. As I said, I wish I had never written this article because of all the damage it caused. By the way, we should not really care whether the Antichrist’s rule will be global or regional. Be that as it may, we are all going to win with Christ in the end and Satan and his Antichrist will lose and that is what really matters.
The Lord bless you all!
Rodrigo
June 8th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Alan,
I have done the same myself on plenty of occasions. Passion is good. Passion for truth is essential. And while I do not need to say it, I doubt that we would have ever found Jesus putting someone down for not being as theologically astute or educated as he. In any case, your willingness to acknowledge and apologise says a lot. Thanks bro. Genuinely. As for the Pre-Wrath Post-Trib issue, I am myself still wrestiling through some of these issues. Make sure to give me a reminder when your book is released. I apologise if my rebuke was too harsh. I really yearn for ongoing intelligent discussion to take place here and I hope that you stick around. Blessings, Joel
June 8th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Rodrigo,
I say correct it, make note of the corrections and leave it up. We all make mistakes, myself at the top of the list. Particularly those of us who work full time jobs, while trying to write, teach and contribute while raising a family, etc etc etc.
Bless you Brother!
June 8th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Rodrigo,
I appreciate your charitable comment. Your humility is humbling. I apologize for being so pointed toward you.
In accordance to modifying your article, I will delete your name reference from my article and change it to a general article responding to this subject. You don’t have to delete your article. You can still argue for a regional position but recognize that those terms can frequently have a global sense in its range.
And thanks Joel for your comments.
Blessings,
Alan
June 8th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Alan,
Don’t worry about it. I undertand your zeal to be faithful to what you believe to be true because I am the same way. I guess we all are.
By the way I learned much from you and Alex also. I can read neither Greek nor Aramaic and even my English is horrible since Portuguese is my first language, therefore it is irrelavant to me personally whether the New Testament was writen in Greek or Aramaic.
Feel free to contact me via e-mail. Perhaps we can share some ideas over the phone sometime. I am always willing to learn from those who know more than me.
Joel, I will think about leavning the article up. I felt very sad today because of what this article caused. It reminded me of the Roman/Middle Eastern beast debate of a few months ago of which I wish I had never gotten involved with. That still bothers me to this day. My wife told me not to get involved in it but I did not listen to her. Oh, how stupid I am sometimes! Or most of the time!
Blessings,
Rodrigo
June 9th, 2009 at 12:46 am
actually, it is great what has happened here, especially the end result; I think we need stuff like this
Rodrigo, keep the modified article, it is very much needed, don’t be so sensitive like me
blessings all
June 9th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Brothers, thank the Lord that this has turned around. I was really feeling like I made a terrible mistake in posting the link to the Prewrath Institute, and alerting Alan about this thread. As I followed along, bouncing back and forth between complete amazement and depression, I began to loose respect for those posting, and this blog. However seeing how it has turned around, and how the Holy Spirit has worked in the hearts of the men posting here, I now have a greater respect, for all of you. Thank you gentlemen for your intellect, but more for your humility. God bless you all, and may we all continue to grow in our understanding of our Lord, until He returns, whenever that me be.