Rev. 7:14, The Greek Text, And The Rapture:

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Martin, Jun 20, 2007.

  1. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Ok, but that does nothing to solve the problem.

    You said:
    Originally Posted by His Blood Spoke My Name
    As I said, the Greek New Testament I am reading from says 'ek megas thlipsis' there is no definite article there. And don't tell me my Greek New Testament is wrong. It is the Received Text that it comes from instead of text based on documents thrown away.

    Once It Was Shown That The Textus Receptus DOES In Fact Contain The Definite Article, And A Different Word Order, You Then said:
    "The Greek NT in front of me does not have the word 'the'. Going through a second electonic NT, it does"

    That is all fine. A version you were using did not have the definite article, that is clearly understood. However I have requested to know the publication information of the Greek NT you were originally using. Yet you still have not provided that information. I want to know what Greek New Testament, that "claims" to be the TR, does not have the definite article in Rev. 7:14. Why can't you just provide the publication information (Title, etc)? It seems very simple to me. Why do I want to know? So I can look at it myself, look into it's reasoning, and warn people to stay away from such a poor publication.

    Revelation 7:14 (The definite article is in read)

    Westcott/Hort:
    "και ειρηκα αυτω κυριε μου συ οιδας και ειπεν μοι ουτοι εισιν οι ερχομενοι εκ της θλιψεως της μεγαλης και επλυναν τας στολας αυτων και ελευκαναν αυτας εν τω αιματι του αρνιου"


    Textus Receptus:
    "και ειρηκα αυτω κυριε συ οιδας και ειπεν μοι ουτοι εισιν οι ερχομενοι εκ της θλιψεως της μεγαλης και επλυναν τας στολας αυτων και ελευκαναν {VAR1: στολας αυτων } {VAR2: αυτας } εν τω αιματι του αρνιου"

    As anyone can clearly see both texts clearly contain the definite article.

    As for your statement:
    That still does nothing to prove that those mentioned in Revelation 7:14 means the great tribulation after the rapture.

    ==The definite article in Rev. 7:14 does not prove the pre-tribulation rapture. There will be a great tribulation (Matt 24:21, Dan 12:1) and I believe Rev 7:14 is talking about that same event. Why? Because the greek could literally read "the Tribulation, the Great one". It seems that the author of Revelation, who I believe is the Apostle John, is talking about a specific period of great tribuation (thus the definite article in Rev. 7:14). So whether the rapture occurs before, during, or after this period there will be a period that the Bible knows as "the great tribulation". And, more to the point of the original thread, the Bible is clear that many people beyond the 144,000 will be saved during this period. To back up that claim I can look at Rev. 7:9-17, 13:8, 14:12-13, Matt 24:22-27, etc.
     
    #1 Martin, Jun 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2007
  2. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still Waiting

    Still waiting on "His Blood Spoke My Name" to provide the requested information.
     
  3. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you holding your breath?
     
  4. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now if a person is of the Partial Preterist view, despite what the Greek says, the events would have been culminated in the fall of Jerusalem by Rome in A.D. 70.

    But I do believe that the Greek construction is being particular, The Great Tribulation, whenever that is.
     
  5. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Yep, and I think that this is an important enough issue to continue holding my breath.
     
  6. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, suit yourself. Lies don't offend God as long as they're dipped in grape juice.
     
  7. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not Going Away

    ==Well, I'm still waiting/holding my breath. I've got a feeling that "His Blood Spoke My Name" thinks that if he ignores this thread long enough it will go away (thus the issue will go away). May I assure everyone that such a thing will not happen. If I have to come on this board once a day and "bump" this thread for weeks I will continue to do that. There is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with here. Ignoring it will not make it go away. It's time for "His Blood Spoke My Name" to put this issue to rest by providing the requested information (ASAP).
     
  8. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's no accident that pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. But some people can never confess. It's too humiliating. God taught me, the hard way, early in my Christian walk that it's better to confess to a lie than to get caught in one and deny it. He pretty much purged lying from me by getting me in situations I couldn't deny. Pride is an incredibly powerful force, but God is more powerful than pride.
     
  9. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    I’m guessing he’s using some form of reverse interlinear.
    The evidence is a loss of the Greek tenses and a changed word order.

    Reverse interlinear versions are strange and difficult animals, more misleading than helpful IMHO.

    Rob
     
  10. Snitzelhoff

    Snitzelhoff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was the other possibility that occurred to me (see my posts in the thread that spawned this one). The lack of noun/adjective declension, gender agreement, and altered word order indicated either a Strong's-coded English New Testament or a reverse interlinear, neither one of which is a Greek New Testament.

    Michael
     
  11. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,635
    Likes Received:
    45
    The very first book I consulted (Lange's Commentary on Revelation) noted that Lachmann's Greek NT lacks the definite article.
     
  12. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    For what it's worth:


    Lachmann, 1831. Karl Lachmann, Novum Testamentum Græce, ex recensione Caroli Lachmanni. Berolini, 1831.
    Lachmann's first edition, which entirely lacked Prolegomena, and merely referred the reader to the prospectus Lachmann had published in a German periodical the previous year (Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pages 817-845). Lachmann's Greek text was constructed on a simpler method than that of Griesbach, although with a less ambitious aim: his stated purpose was to reconstruct the text current in the fourth century, without claiming to present the "original" and without attempting to explain the evidence of later manuscripts. In doing this, he consulted collations of a small number of the oldest manuscripts, and the citations of Origen and Ireneaus, and simply chose the readings of the majority of these, without any regard for the later copies. Where his chosen authorities were evenly balanced, he employed Latin witnesses to decide the issue. He did not employ theories of recensions or rules of "internal" evidence (see Wettstein 1730, Bengel 1742, Griesbach 1796), but based his decisions solely on manuscript data.
    Because the oldest manuscripts chosen by Lachmann correspond to Griesbach's "Alexandrian" group, Lachmann's text may be seen as a useful contribution toward the reconstruction of the earliest Alexandrian text, but Lachmann himself rejected the idea of grouping manuscripts in this manner. His text was welcomed by those who felt that Griesbach had not sufficiently devalued the Received Text, but widely criticized for the narrow range of witnesses it represented. Tregelles, who very fully describes the editions of Lachmann in his Account of the Printed Text (pp. 97-115), especially questions the neglect of the Syriac and Coptic versions and the citations of other early ecclesiastical writers, and also points out that the collations used by Lachmann were inadequate for his purpose. The range of witnesses employed was widened somewhat in Lachmann's second edition (see Lachmann 1842).

    Lachmann, 1842. Karl Lachmann, Testamentum Novum Græce et Latine Carolus Lachmannus recensuit. Philippus Butmannus, Ph. F. Græcæ Lectionis Auctoritatis, apposuit. Berolini, 1842, 1850. 2 vols.
    Lachmann's second edition, which includes a Preface describing his method, a critically revised Latin Vulgate (based upon collations of two manuscripts of the sixth century), and annotations to the Greek text (supplied by Philip Butmann the younger) indicating the manuscript authority for the readings adopted. The text is not the same as the first edition, but revised on a wider basis of authorities and with more weight given to Latin witnesses. The readings of this edition, with the marginal readings also, are collated against Estienne 1550 in the appendix of Tregelles 1854. They are collated without the margin in Newberry 1877 and Scrivener and Nestle 1906.
    The following is a paraphrase of the six rules of documentary evidence set forth rather obscurely by Lachmann in his Preface:
    • The text is best established where all authorities agree.
    • The text is somewhat doubtful where some of the authorities are defective.
    • The text is well established where authorities of different regions agree.
    • The text is doubtful where authorities of different regions disagree.
    • The text is very doubtful where authorities of one region uniformly display a reading different from a reading uniformly displayed in another region.
    • When the text is doubtful or very doubtful by reason of the situation described in 4 or 5, then the reading which is most uniformly displayed in its region should be preferred.
     
  13. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still waiting on "My Blood Spoke His Name" to answer the question and provide the requested information. If your statements about using a Greek New Testament were truthful then my request seems simple enough and you should answer without delay.
     
  14. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still waiting
     
  15. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    He was banned, so he can't respond anymore.
     
  16. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==O, well. I guess I will never know the truth of the situation. Thanks for letting me know.
     

Share This Page

Loading...