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

שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שִׁשִּׁים וָשֵׁשׁ כִּכַּר

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Besides that:

    If Revelation 13:3 indeed alludes to the Nero Redivivus legend it can be seen as proof that it was written after the year 70.
    Nero Redivivus Legend was a belief popular during the last part of the 1st century that Nero would return after his death in 68 AD.
    More: it is about just one of the seven heads of the beast. It doesn't say: Nero is the beast.


    • #32
      Originally posted by John Reece
      Why could not the year be 68 rather than 70?
      Revelation 13:3 says: " but its mortal wound was healed", which intimates that , if the writer indeed had the Nero redivivus legend in mind, then in his notion Nero indeed did come back, even as the eighth king mentioned in Revelation 17:11, likely as Domitian.

      Originally posted by John Reece
      Nor does it say: Domitian is the beast.
      The beast seems to be personification of the anti-godlike worldpower, and not a singular person, and also not confined to a certain historical period of time.


      • #33
        Originally posted by John Reece
        I subscribe to robrecht's signature, which would be mine at present if he hadn't beat me to it. In fact, for a time in years past, I used to rotate the old ICC comment on it as a signature.
        I am, of course, more than willing to share this with you, John. There is no copyright on the word of God; it cannot be appropriated, bought or sold, despite the practices of publishers of Bible translations.

        By the way, John & Geert, I've come across the views of a guy who thinks the scriptures should always be read in their original languages in church services and then the lector should make his or her own translation (prepared or spontaneously) for the given congregation at the given time in order to allow the word of God to speak to the congregation as directly as possible. I really like this view! It combines the importance of the literal original text with the high value, however fleeting and transitory, of dynamic equivalence translations. This would also require, and encourage, our lectors to be well trained in the original languages and sensitive to the activity of the Spirit in local communities. Most would consider this highly unrealistic, of course, but I really like this idea.

        By the way, I've started a separate thread on this so as not to derail this one. See here:
        Last edited by robrecht; 03-09-2014, 09:17 AM.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃


        • #34
          Originally posted by John Reece

          If that is so, then why do you keep saying that the reference is to Domitian?

          It says: "the number of the beast is the number of a man" -- not: "the beast is a man".


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