Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Revelation 22:18

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Geert van den Bos
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    I know I'm going to regret this.

    י֥וֹם הַשִּׁשִּֽׁי


    He = 5
    Vav = 6
    Yod 10 x 2 = 20
    Mem = 40
    Shin = 300 x 2 = 600

    Total = 671 not 666

    Disclaimer: Only in very rare instances, when the author of a book is consciously using gematria, does it have any value for understanding the intended meaning of the author. The scriptures are not magical texts.
    Rashi:

    http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi=true
    the sixth day: Scripture added a “hey” on the sixth [day], at the completion of the Creation, to tell us that (...)

    The other day-indications are written without "hey" : "yom echad, yom sh'ni, yom sh'loshi, yom r'vii, yom chamishi".

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
    The "eyeopener" in the book of Revelation being the number 666 as gematria of "yom shishi", sixth day, where is written in Genesis 1:31 "yom hashishi", the sixth day ...
    I know I'm going to regret this.

    י֥וֹם הַשִּׁשִּֽׁי


    He = 5
    Vav = 6
    Yod 10 x 2 = 20
    Mem = 40
    Shin = 300 x 2 = 600

    Total = 671 not 666

    Disclaimer: Only in very rare instances, when the author of a book is consciously using gematria, does it have any value for understanding the intended meaning of the author. The scriptures are not magical texts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Geert van den Bos
    replied
    You might ask what is meant by "the water of life".

    Revelation 21:6 says that it comes from a source, "pègè", and that the "I" who is the Alpha and the Omega, the principle and the purpose, will give to the one who is thirsty
    from this source for free.
    Revelation 22:1 mentions a river of water of life that goes forth from the throne of God and of the Lamb.

    "Pègè", πηγὴ, is also mentioned in John 4:14,

    but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
    ὃς δ' ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

    I am convinced that it refers to Genesis 2:6, and a mist went up from the earth and watered (gave to drink) the whole face of the ground

    LXX has: πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπότιζεν πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς

    i.e. "the source" the writer of Revelation has in mind is the "mist" of Genesis 2:6, Hebrew "ed", אֵד.

    The "eyeopener" in the book of Revelation being the number 666 as gematria of "yom shishi", sixth day, where is written in Genesis 1:31 "yom hashishi", the sixth day, with which the name of God, the Tetragrammaton, appears to be present hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim", the last two words of Genesis 1 and the first two words of Genesis 2 (the name of God further being absent in teh first story of creation).
    The letter "hey", that makes the difference between "yom shishi" and "yom hashishi" has the value of 5 ("hey" is the fifth letter), which again is gematria of "ed" (1+4).

    Revelation 22:1 is after Ezekiel 47, 1Then he brought me back to the door of the temple, and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east)
    (...)3 Going on eastward with a measuring line in his hand, the man measured a thousand cubits, and then led me through the water, and it was[B] ankle-deep. 4 Again he measured a thousand, and led me through the water, and it was knee-deep. Again he measured a thousand, and led me through the water, and it was waist-deep. 5 Again he measured a thousand, and it was a river that I could not pass through, for the water had risen. It was deep enough to swim in, a river that could not be passed through
    indicating the 1-4 principle "1" is the head, "4" are the four parts of the body, the torso, the thighs, the legs, the feet.

    I.e. the river has the properties of the source, it is the flowing source.
    The throne of God and of the lamb being the place Genesis 1:31 - 2:1, entrance of sabbath.

    cf. Revelation 13: 5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling,[a] that is, those who dwell in heaven. 7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them.[b] 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 in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world 9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear:

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    ... It doesn't have to be "derived from the Greek."
    My brother, Obsidian, since you have explained this comment in terms of my lack of willingness to understand the truth and not a lack of interest on your part in understanding the Greek text before us, I will proceed with an explanation of the Greek as I read it, but I am always open to correction or other ideas from those who can make a good case for reading the Greek more faithfully.

    You would like to understand Rev 22,17-18 in the following way:
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    But I am postulating that everyone who wants can come drink from the water of life for free, and that if anyone tries to add any conditions to make it not free, then God will send plagues.
    So let’s look at how this might work first in the King James’ English and then in the Greek, which I will try to interpret to the best of my ability (despite my unwillingness to understand the truth).

    17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come.
    And let him that heareth say, Come.
    And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

    18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,
    If any man shall add (any conditions) unto these things (ie, the water of life, which render it less free),
    God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
    God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

    Καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη λέγουσιν, ἔρχου.
    καὶ ὁ ἀκούων εἰπάτω, ἔρχου.
    καὶ ὁ διψῶν ἐρχέσθω, ὁ θέλων λαβέτω ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν.

    Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου,
    ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ᾽ αὐτά,
    ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ,

    καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης,
    ἀφελεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.


    The first difficulty with Obsidian’s interpretation is that it takes ‘unto these things’ (ἐπ᾽ αὐτά) as referring to ‘water of life freely’ (ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν), but that is not possible in Greek because αὐτά is plural and therefore does not refer back to ὕδωρ ζωῆς, which is singular.

    So to what does αὐτά refer? Following the Latin, Wycliffe, Tyndale, and King James (all directly or indirectly at least partly dependent upon the Latin) translated this word well as a demonstrative pronoun, ‘these things’, while more modern English versions more mechanically translate it as a personal pronoun, ‘them’. It is true that the αὐτά is indeed technically, mechanically a personal pronoun, but it is also true that in Greek the personal pronoun can carry the force of a demonstrative pronoun, as it does here. I’ll explain why subsequently. The real problem with the English is that since ‘them’ can be either masculine, feminine, both, or neuter, and since ‘these things’ is neuter in English, it will be assumed by most readers to refer back to ‘the words of the prophecy of this book’, and ‘the words’ like all other common nouns in English is neither masculine nor feminine and therefore most people just think of ‘words’ as neuter.

    The earlier Latin fostered this misunderstanding because ‘verba’ is neuter plural and ‘haec’ can be a neuter plural accusative (it can also be feminine singular nominative neuter plural nominative):

    contestor ego omni audienti verba prophetiae libri huius si quis adposuerit ad haec adponet Deus super illum plagas scriptas in libro isto

    Martin Luther’s German, by the way, is no better: dazu.

    So, getting back to the Greek, what does the neuter plural accusative αὐτά refer to and why should we attribute to it a demonstrative sense?

    Noting the importance of context, αὐτά in the Greek clearly refers back to ταῦτα (these things) in Rev 22,8bis.16. See also ταῦτα in 22.20. All are neuter plural accusative pronouns. ταῦτα is a demonstrative pronoun and αὐτά easily takes on the added force of a demonstrative, giving emphatic prominence, especially when used in summary fashion (cf Thayer) to ‘all’ these things written about and signified in the prophecy of this book.

    Κἀγὼ Ἰωάννης ὁ ἀκούων καὶ βλέπων ταῦτα. καὶ ὅτε ἤκουσα καὶ ἔβλεψα, ἔπεσα προσκυνῆσαι ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ δεικνύοντός μοι ταῦτα.
    I, John, (am) the one hearing and seeing these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel showing me these things.

    Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις.
    I, Jesus, sent my angel to you to witness to you concerning these things to the churches.
    - Note the reference back to the first part of the book

    Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.
    The one testifying concerning these things says, Yes, I am coming quickly. Amen, come, Lord Jesus.

    The sense is that these things prophecied in the book of Revelation are real. If you try to add to them, they will bite you. God will send down the plagues on you. These are not the type of things that one should change. It is sort of like a prophetic threat.

    But the normal English is not so bad because it is practically implied by the parallelism between 22,18 and 19:

    …. ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ . ἐπ᾽ αὐτά,
    καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης


    If any man shall add ................. unto these things
    And if any man shall take away... from the .. words of the book of this prophecy

    ‘These things’, although neuter in Greek, are indeed placed parallel with ‘the (masculine) words of the book of this prophecy’. Why place these things in parallel if ‘these things’ cannot refer directly to ‘the words’. Because the words of prophecy are as real as the things prophesied. Do not add to these things and do not subtract from the prophetic words. Obviously, a scribe should not add to these things as written in the book or take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, but the prophetic threat is more all-encompassing than just an admonition regarding scribal practice. The person speaking in 22,18 could be John, or it could be the angel witnessing to these things. Take another look at 22,8.16 (above): John is the one hearing these things and the angel is one witnessing to these things. Likewise in 22,18 John may be thought of as one of every one hearing the words of the prophecy of this book dictated by the angel. But it is also quite possible that Jesus is the one speaking in 22,18. It is not always clear whether or when Jesus, the angel, or John is speaking. John is a prophet (22,9); he speaks for God, the words he hears from the angel, who seems also to appear as Jesus. Such is the authority of this book. Don’t add to it, don’t take away from it.
    Last edited by robrecht; 02-28-2014, 06:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    I meant "primarily" in the sense that the Spirit does a great deal of the work for evangelism, whereas the church helps. The church does most of the work for prayer, whereas the Spirit only helps in prayer. I did not mean that evangelism is the Spirit's only job.

    Regarding the larger point, it is clear from Revelation that the author is deeply familiar with the Bible as a whole (more so than most or even all Christians today). And it is clear that Revelation derives at least some of its symbols and terminology from elsewhere in the Bible. What I am proposing is similar, except that I am saying virtually all of it comes from elsewhere in the Bible. And generally speaking, any parts that don't come from elsewhere are usually defined within the book itself.
    Do you find your idea about the primary and secondary roles of the Spirit and the Church in evangelism and prayer reflected in the book of Revelation? Do you find it relected in other books of the Bible?

    If so, where in Revelation and where else in the other books of the Bible?
    Last edited by robrecht; 02-25-2014, 01:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Obsidian
    replied
    I meant "primarily" in the sense that the Spirit does a great deal of the work for evangelism, whereas the church helps. The church does most of the work for prayer, whereas the Spirit only helps in prayer. I did not mean that evangelism is the Spirit's only job.

    Regarding the larger point, it is clear from Revelation that the author is deeply familiar with the Bible as a whole (more so than most or even all Christians today). And it is clear that Revelation derives at least some of its symbols and terminology from elsewhere in the Bible. What I am proposing is similar, except that I am saying virtually all of it comes from elsewhere in the Bible. And generally speaking, any parts that don't come from elsewhere are usually defined within the book itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    I don't disagree that the Spirit speaks to the churches. Did you think that I would? Just because I said that the Spirit evangelizes?
    No, I was merely commenting on your use here of the idea that the Spirit is primarily involved in evangelism (rather than prayer) in order to support your interpretation of 22,18, challenging you to support the use of this idea here from the presence and use of this idea elsewhere in this book. That would be a better, more convincing way to try and make your case.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    I don't disagree that the Spirit speaks to the churches. Did you think that I would? Just because I said that the Spirit evangelizes? Respectfully, every piece of your thinking seems incredibly rigid and inflexible. It seems like I can't even discuss things with you without you without your claiming that I didn't answer your questions clearly enough. Please read between the lines.

    Revelation 22:17 clearly is not an example of the Spirit speaking to the churches. We are debating whether it is speaking to Jesus (through the church) or speaking to outsiders (in large part, also through the church).
    Why do you feel a need to insult others, eg, I am being purposely dense, I'm not interested in the truth, my thinking is incredibly rigid and inflexible. Do you think these insults are likely to improve our ability to communicate?

    My question was was designed to make you think about something important. If you avoid it instead of answering it, you are limiting the conversation between us, not me. I said initially and it is still true, I will not hold your negative characterizations against you. But are they really helping you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Obsidian
    replied
    Originally posted by Robrecht
    But look at Rev 2,7,eg, you will see that John says, he who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churchs. This is not evangelization of outsiders but prophetic correction of the Church.
    I don't disagree that the Spirit speaks to the churches. Did you think that I would? Just because I said that the Spirit evangelizes? Respectfully, every piece of your thinking seems incredibly rigid and inflexible. It seems like I can't even discuss things with you without you without your claiming that I didn't answer your questions clearly enough. Please read between the lines.

    Revelation 22:17 clearly is not an example of the Spirit speaking to the churches. We are debating whether it is speaking to Jesus (through the church) or speaking to outsiders (in large part, also through the church).

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    Exactly. I believe that if you want to understand Revelation, you first have to understand the rest of the Bible.
    Genau umgekehrt. You should first try to understand how this author is using language. For example, you want to use the idea that the Spirit is primarily involved in evangelization to understand this passage. But is that how this author understands the role of the Spirit in this book? You should try to make this case first before inserting your own ideas. If you look at Rev 2,7, eg, you will see that John says, he who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churchs. This is not evangelization of outsiders but prophetic correction of the Church. Look at the usage of this writer first and try to understand what he is saying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Obsidian
    replied
    Honestly, here is another interpretation I would consider:

    Revelation 22:7 NASB
    “And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.”

    Revelation 22:14 NASB
    Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.


    Assume that the blessing of verse 7 which refers to keeping the words of the book, is linked with verse 14 which refers to washing your robe, which is linked with verse 19 which referencing the tree and the city. As such, verses 18-19 might be referring to obeying the commandments of Jesus contained in the book (especially the commandments to the seven churches). And washing robes may refer to the same thing as keeping commandments. This would also line up with Moses's use of the language. Taking away from the law meant failing to keep it. Adding to the law meant invoking God's name in vain to invent new rules.

    However, I still like the first interpretation better, because it ties John ("I testify") to the people saying "Come" in the immediately preceding verse. And it ties the three references to people that "heareth" together as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Obsidian
    replied
    If "come" means to come drink from the water of life, then the question arises what water is even at issue -- the water flowing from the throne of New Jerusalem. Then the question arises what New Jerusalem is being discussed. The question arises to whom or what the New Jerusalem refers. The question arises what its significance is. And especially at the time when Revelation was most likely written, the question would arise, well what about the physical Jerusalem and temple sacrifices? Who is the Lamb? So ultimately, the entire book would become fairly important to the proclamation of the gospel.

    I'm not dogmatic about my view. I am open to critiques. And I'm open to considering anything that seems better. But I do consider the text-tampering viewpoint fairly ridiculous (for the reasons discussed already). Likewise, the idea that this verse applies to the whole Bible is false, except insofar as Revelation is a short recapitulation of much of the Bible.

    Originally posted by Robrecht
    It seems like you are using concepts that are external to the book of Revelation to interpret it.
    Exactly. I believe that if you want to understand Revelation, you first have to understand the rest of the Bible.

    Revelation 1:1 says that Jesus "signified" the message to John. It isn't a particularly literal book.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    ... The Spirit is primarily involved in evangelism. The bride is primarily involved in prayer. If your view were correct, I would expect to see the reference to the Spirit either not present, or present after the bride ("The bride and the Spirit"). Finally, given that the bride is specifically referred to in the visions as already being in heaven with Jesus, it doesn't make logical sense for the bride to be instructing Jesus to come. (The proper command would be something more like, "Go.") In contrast, it makes sense that the Holy Spirit would be the primary one talking if it is speaking of getting people saved. The Spirit is described as getting people saved in John 3.
    It seems like you are using concepts that are external to the book of Revelation to interpret it. You should first try to show that these ideas are in fact present in the book itself. And before doing that, you should learn to read the book in the original language if you want to have the best chance of understanding it. By the way, the 'imperative' mood in Greek is not only used for commands.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    I'm not aware of anyone in the history of the church who had an entirely firm grasp on Revelation. And I don't claim to have an entirely firm grasp on it yet. That is what I am still working on.
    This is not a response to what I asked, thus I'm still curious to know if you are aware of anyone in the history of the church who has read these words in the manner that you do?

    Leave a comment:


  • Obsidian
    replied
    Again, I'm still curious to know if you are aware of anyone in the history of the church who has read these words in the manner that you do?
    I'm not aware of anyone in the history of the church who had an entirely firm grasp on Revelation. And I don't claim to have an entirely firm grasp on it yet. That is what I am still working on.

    For example, some might see this as the Spirit praying within us, the bride, the Church, eagerly awaiting the coming of the Lord Jesus, as John himself prays in in this very context (22,20): Amen, come, Lord Jesus.
    Revelation 22:17 NASB
    The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.


    Maybe I am unusual, but I've always naturally read this verse as the Spirit telling people to come and drink. Based on the Greek, I bet you could even translate the whole verse as one long sentence if you really wanted.

    The Spirit is primarily involved in evangelism. The bride is primarily involved in prayer. If your view were correct, I would expect to see the reference to the Spirit either not present, or present after the bride ("The bride and the Spirit"). Finally, given that the bride is specifically referred to in the visions as already being in heaven with Jesus, it doesn't make logical sense for the bride to be instructing Jesus to come. (The proper command would be something more like, "Go.") In contrast, it makes sense that the Holy Spirit would be the primary one talking if it is speaking of getting people saved. The Spirit is described as getting people saved in John 3.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X