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

Are you holding your breath?

 

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.

 

Well, suit yourself. Lies don't offend God as long as they're dipped in grape juice.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

The very first book I consulted (Lange's Commentary on Revelation) noted that Lachmann's Greek NT lacks the definite article.

 

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.

 

He was banned, so he can't respond anymore.