by Schizm 368 Replies latest watchtower bible
You're not convincing anyone, you know
First of all, I'm not Robert King.
Secondly, neither you nor I know whether I've helped anyone to identify the name of the beast. But the thread has now been read almost 3,000 times. I would think that with those numbers there are people that aren't even registered to post here at JWD who are also reading this thread. You can't speak for them, any more than I can--you presumptuous Scot!
Schizm
.
...you presumptuous Scot!
I'm hurt - I truly am...
10 pages of 20 posts apiece, and I must have accessed this thread at least twenty times or more myself (further, you get a second hit just by posting). Methinks that not as many have read it as you think.
Nonetheless, it's been an intersting thread, and for that I thank you
There are three standard-setting examples to be considered (two in the Revelation account and a third in the Hebrew Scriptures) whereby a name on the forehead does not represent the personal name of those bearing such engraving. Instead, it identifies whom such ones serve, and thus who their owner is.
Relevently, the Scriptures also say the heads of the 7-headed beast have names written on them ("upon its heads blasphemous names; Re 13:1). In view of the fact that the beast received its authority from the dragon (Satan), the name written upon each of the 7 heads could be none other than "Satan".
With all the examples which show that a name written on a forehead is NOT the name of the person bearing the name, it would be outright foolish to assume that the name on the harlot's forehead is her own name.
Schizm
.
Is the name "Lord of Lords and King of Kings" a similarly preposterous length of name?
Btw, I notice you never addressed any portion of my breakdown of the relevant chapters of Revelation
OF COURSE you wouldn't notice that the bible is inconsistent with itself, Schizm. You're not consistent within YOURself. There are so many loose threads in your thinking, I'm amazed you can walk down the street without tripping over yourself.
Contrary to the way you people would have it, the Bible is not inconsistent with itself. The Bible doesn't teach in one place that a name written on a forehead is not the name of the person bearing the name, and then in some other place teach the very opposite.
In every other case where the name belongs to someone the Bible specifically states that the name belongs to someone else and clearly identifies to whom the name belongs. So if the name does not refer to the woman, this would be the exception to your consistency rule. If the name does refer to the woman, then the Bible is consistent on this point.
AuldSoul
So what you're saying is that the words can be shifted around if necessary in order to make "sense of the phrase" (to clarify the meaning). In the one instance, you have taken the liberty of switching places with the words "forehead" and "her". And in the second instance you took the liberty of switching places with the words "written" and "name". You've also taken the liberty of striking out the words "the" and "of" in the first instance. And in the second instance you've taken the liberty of striking out the words "having" and "been," while at the same time adding "was" and "a" to the text. What you find OKAY for yourself to do is quite similar to what you say I was WRONG for having done. You reworded the sentence in various places, the result of which is a paraphrased version of the original. Yes, you've restated the text using other words in order to clarify the meaning of the text.
There is a serious flaw in your logic. You have suggested that my changes are tantamount to the changes that you propose to introduce. I have reworded the possessive "the forehead of her" to "her forehead" and simplified "name having been written" to "was written a name". You allege that these 'changes', which do not at all alter the sense of what is written, are tantamount to adding connectives and phrasing that do not exist at all in the original text. You have added in "Yes, that was the name inscribed upon the forehead of she who", which finds no support in the original text, and is far beyond the "same liberties" that you claim that I have taken with the text.
As stated previously, you do not leave anything valid left to be done with the remaining words, because the necessary connectives to make your translation valid do not exist in the original text. That is why all translators include the phrase as part of the "name" (onoma), that is, a description of the woman's character.
Furthermore, the woman is sitting on the beast which suggests dominance, and the scriptures do not say that she worships it. Even if it is assumed that the name on the forehead represents worship of someone, there would still be nothing to indicate that it refers to the beast.
Contrary to the way you people would have it, the Bible is not inconsistent with itself. The Bible doesn't teach in one place that a name written on a forehead is not the name of the person bearing the name, and then in some other place teach the very opposite. -- Schizm.In every other case where the name belongs to someone the Bible specifically states that the name belongs to someone else and clearly identifies to whom the name belongs. So if the name does not refer to the woman, this would be the exception to your consistency rule. If the name does refer to the woman, then the Bible is consistent on this point. -- AuldSoul
Your comment, in two parts:
In every other case ... the Bible specifically states that the name belongs to someone else and clearly identifies to whom the name belongs. So if the name does not refer to the woman, this would be the exception to your consistency rule.
Your insinuation that the Bible is inconsistent, unless in every case it specifically states who the name on a person's forehead belongs to, is totally false. Just because the Bible isn't as detailed in one place as it is in others, doesn't prove that it's inconsistent with itself.
If the name does refer to the woman, then the Bible is consistent on this point.
The truth of the matter is that if the name were meant to refer to the woman, then the Bible would indeed be inconsistent. As it is, however, the name does NOT refer to the woman. The name refers to the beast, and it's "Babylon the Great". Schizm .
Ye, Gods!!! Now he's posting in Technicolor!! My eyes!!! My eyes!!!
Jeffro,
I have reworded....
Naw ... tell me it isn't so! You mean you're actually making an admission of having changed the text around? Well blow me down, Popeye! I suppose that what you're gonna tell me now is that someone's rewording of the original text is fine and dandy, as long as it's done within the limits YOU stipulate.
You have added in "Yes....," which finds no support in the original text.
And YOU added in "was" and "a," which finds no support in the original text. And besides that, you took out "the," "of," "having" and "been," which finds no support in the original text.
Furthermore, the woman is sitting on the beast which suggests dominance
Say's who?
and the scriptures do not say that she worships it. Even if it is assumed that the name on the forehead represents worship of someone, there would still be nothing to indicate that it refers to the beast.
It's quite obvious that you have a hearing problem.
Schizm
.
