2nd aorist indicative.
No. He is saying that he was exiled to Patmos (in the past) for his testimony. It is a causative statement. :)
Question on source - Paul's testimony of heavenly visit
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Genevanpreacher, Apr 3, 2017.
Page 5 of 5
-
-
Perhaps I misread a few times where a post states that the Geneva Bible doesn't have John on Patmos when He was given the vision.
Here is a copy from the Geneva Bible 1599. GENEVA BIBLE 1599
"9 I John, even your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom
and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the
isle called Patmos, for the word of God,
and for the witnessing of Jesus Christ.
Again, if I misread, please just ignore this old man. -
Genevanpreacher MemberSite Supporter
But verse 2 points out the vision as the past, because he obviously had the vision BEFORE he wrote it out.
"Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw."
All things that he 'saw'. That is past tense.
He had the vision, then later wrote the complete vision down. -
Yep, John had the vision on Patmos, so that puts the writing at even a later date, because John wasn’t released from Patmos until the emperor died in 97-98AD.
John was on Patmos during the mid 90’s, most likely from about 95-6 to 97-8.
This was at least 30 years after both Paul and Peter deaths, and even much longer from the time of Paul’s statement concerning the man and vision. -
-
Patmos was not and is not even to this day some highly populated island.
It was, in the Roman Empire, a penal colony with a Roman garrison and populated primarily by the banished and held weakened by impoverishment, and the garrison families, slaves, concubines, ... -
Genevanpreacher MemberSite Supporter
"...and heard words which can not be spoken, which are not possible for man to utter."
Not unlawful.
See my explanation a few posts back.
Thanks. -
ουκ εξον = not in public. Something you can't say openly, but must keep it a secret.
-
Genevanpreacher MemberSite Supporter
Maybe historical "timing" is not as accurate as plain ol' scripture.
Paul said he knew a man.
Paul knew a man. A whole separate man, which was not himself. A man who shared an experience with Paul. A wild sounding story. One which Paul thought should be impossible to come from the imagination of a man.
Why should the "simple" be so hard for men of God to accept?
Beats me. -
Interestingly, the note on II Cor. 12:4 in the 1560 Geneva at Archive.org says "Mans infirmitie was not able to declare them, neither were they shewed unto him for that end." "Or, lawful." [that is, or could be "not lawful" in place of "not possible".]
-
Genevanpreacher MemberSite Supporter
-
-
I don't see anything there that explains how John uttered things that were not possible for man to utter. -
Genevanpreacher MemberSite Supporter
No interpreting.
It says what it says.
And what does it matter if all men believe it opposite of what the word of God says?
Does that make them right and those who believe God wrong?
Priorities folks. :) -
Genevanpreacher MemberSite Supporter
And they are wrong. -
-
Genevanpreacher MemberSite Supporter
Sad. So sad.
Page 5 of 5