New World Translation Brackets!!

by gold_morning 137 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mondo1

  What, exactly, is a prayer, in your theology, Mondo1? What does prayer mean? Is this requirement of invisibility one you made up to suit your dogma, or do you have some basis for insisting that prayer is only to things unseen?

  I generally consider prayer to be a message that is spoken outwardly or inwardly to a deity not in your presence.

  Revelation 1:9 and 22:8 do not denote a change in speaker. Nor does the text in any way indicate that as a function of the construct. That is what threw me off. You said the construction denoted a change in speaker in two other places. Upon examining the texts you cited, I realize you are mistaken.

  No, I'm not. In Revelation 1:8 we have God speaking. John cuts in at verse 9. In Revelation 22:7 we have the angel speaking, John cuts in at verse 8.

  In the case of Revelation 22, it also does not denote a change in speaker. It does denote something in all three cases, however. For this purpose it is not an uncommon construction at all. It denotes that the speaker personally affirms what follows, affixes his name to what is recorded, as a personal guarantor of the validity. (1 Corinthians 10:1; Galatians 5:2; Ephesians 3:1; Colossians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; Philemon 19)

  What on earth does the use of it within an epistle have to do with the use of it in this piece of apocalyptic literature? Nothing at all. I stand by what I said, for the evidence of the use within the book of Revelation is clear in that a speaker change is presented.

  Mondo1: You mentioned that Jehovah is also coming quickly. But, once again, failed to give a reference. You can add Revelation 2:16 to the earlier list a gave, for a total of 5 occurrences of Jesus coming quickly versus the zero count of anyone else "coming quickly". Your assertion that verse 7 is the angel referring to itself as coming quickly is unfounded, since the angel is speaking for Jesus, the one who sent the angel.

  Nothing suggests that the angel stopped speaking or that it is speaking "for Jesus." There is no reason that the angel could not say it, for the NT is clear in that Jesus will come with the angels. (Mat. 16:27) Further, the Bible also speaks of the Father coming. In fact, the very text in which Revelation 22:12 is sourced from does so, Isaiah 40:10, where the Messiah is seen in "the arm of Jehovah" (cf. Isa 53:1) ruling for the Jehovah that comes. This is also brought out in Daniel 7:22 and Luke 20:13-16.
• 

  Mondo1

  I believe I already stated that I don't know. You act like it is my burden to defend what they have done. Newsflash: It isn't.
• 

  Mondo1

  LL

  I don't have to "explain it away." Trinitarians are actually the ones that must do this, for they must "explain away" the context. Notice what Fekkes states on 1:17-18: "In what way, then, is Christ here the First and the Last? What is the basis for his authority? Among commentators, two views appear most prominent. One group understands the designation as an expression of Christ's eternity, which underlies his authority as the Lord of all history. The other group connects the title with the event of Christ's resurrection and subsequent enthronement, which authenticated his past existence, confirmed his divine authority, and established him as God's agent of salvation and judgment. "The first view is based on the assumption that all three double tiles, whether applies to God or Christ, have exactly the same force. Yet this overlooks the fact that first and last is reserved for Christ alone. Not only is it associated with the resurrection explicitly in two of its three uses (1.17-18; 2.8), but John relates Christ's 'firstness' specifically to the resurrection when it 1.5 he calls him the 'firstborn from the dead'. In addition, he repeatedly gives evidence that Christ's victory over death is the basis of his authority over the church and the world. It appears then the second view best accords with the immediate context and John's overall perspective." on 2:8- "It is surely significant that John here does not merely take over the first and last designation from 1.17, but retains its connection with the resurrection." Trinitarians must "explain away" the context, as I said. The context shows him the first and the last with respects the resurrection, not as God is.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Mondo1: What on earth does the use of it within an epistle have to do with the use of it in this piece of apocalyptic literature?

  I believe you when you say you have researched to discover the mindset of the people who used the language parts you are considering. How do you go about doing that if not by examining usage of similar construction in other writings of the same period?

  What I stated the construction means is unquestionably what the construction means. From where, pray tell, did you get your understanding of the matter?
• 

  Mondo1

  Again, one is an epistle. There cannot be a speaker change within an epistle, because there is one writing a letter. You are comparing two completely different types of literature that were written by two different authors, who possessed two different writing styles. Rev. 1:9 and 22:8 are very clear. With 22:8 having such close proximity to 22:16, it is hard to image a different use in 22:16.
• 

  AuldSoul

  I agree with you that 1:9 and 22:8 are very clear. John wasn't a speaker in Revelation (except for, "My lord, you are the one that knows." and possibly "Amen! Come Lord Jesus."). He was a narrator and observer.

  So, John did not speak in verse 1:9. Nor did John speak in 22:8.

  Nor did John "cut in" as a narrator in 1:9 to interject a thought into another thought stream. 1-8 are a preface for what is to come. He commences the actual disclosure of the revelation in the same paragraph containing 1:9.

  He opens the disclosure of the revelation by identifying himself, much the same way Jude opens his letter by identifying himself, as does James, and Paul (in many of his letters), as a means of authenticating this scroll, declaring its provenance.

  He ends the disclosure of the revelation the same way. I say this because, the revelation ended in 22:7. Hadn't you noticed? Nothing following occurs in the Lord's Day and he is no longer seeing visions from that point on. In fact, Revelation 22 is almost a mirror of the order of Revelation 1, including a declaration from Jesus that he is the one who sent the angel to his slaves, a declaration that confirms Revelation 1:1. Then there is some parting caution about not changing the scroll and a declaration (again) of Jesus' speedy arrival. But no more revelation after 22:7.

  After 22:7 comes the closing that is a nearly perfect image of his opening. I don't think it odd in the least that he opens with this form and closes with the same form, given the historical usage of this construct and the great likelihood that this fantastical scroll would be greeted with skepticism, to say the least. I also don't think it odd that Jesus himself weighed in, by declaring who he was again, then naming himself, then using his name to authenticate that these things things are from him, again establishing a claimed provenance for the contents of the scroll. Then Jesus attaches a personal threat against anyone who alters the contents of the scroll, for instance, changing the word kurios into the name "Jehovah."

  However, throughout the revelation itself, John often switches perspective from one speaker to another, from one perspective to another, and never once uses the transition you believe to be his trademark. Can you explain that?

  Also, I am waiting to see what your source is for your conclusion regarding the "change of speaker" theory. I suspect you came up with that one on your own. If you are the student I believe you to be, you won't hang on to that idea for very long.
• 

  Hellrider

  Mondo:

  It was a legalistic linguistic construct, which explains Paul's frequent usage, that affixed the named one as guarantor to the vow, contract, testimony. A sort of notarization that the following (or, more rarely, the preceding) is authentic, binding, or true. This construct was being used in many languages long prior to the writing of Revelation, and is still being used in the same way in legal documents down to this day

  I had vaguely suspected that, after the discussion with Mondo in that thread was over. Thanks for confirming it!
• 

  Mondo1

  John speaks to his audience. He is directing his words to those reading the text. No, he is not talking to anybody in the text, but the point is that he shows that it is not longer the one that was just speaking saying these things, but he himself. I would not agree, especially in 22:8, that John is merely closing up. Even if he were, it was already established in verse 1 that it is John to whom the Revelation is being given, so to say that he is merely identifying himself is rather superfluous. 22:8 presents a clear interjection on the part of John, and he uses his name to make this known. 22:7 presents the angel speaking, in response to which John states that he was hearing it and he fell down to worship. The angel the replies. As John identifies the speaker change to himself, he tells us also that the angel made a reply to him in verse 9. See, your argument falls rather flat, because 22:7 continues in 22:8-11. It doesn't stop with John's statement in verse 8 as you argue. I would again argue that "his slaves" are God's slaves, not Jesus'. We have QEOS... AUTWi... AUTOU. AUTOU refers back to QEOS, not AUTWi.
• 

  Mondo1

  I thought I would point out the following from the Anchor Bible Commentary:

  "If one follows Gaechter’s order, the concluding words of Revelation (22:10-13) are spoken by the One who sits upon the Throne, rather than by the interpreting angel; cf. 22:8-10… It echoes Isa 40:10; Pss 28:4; 62:12; Jer 17:10, all of which refer to God as the One who brings recompense for the good or bad. Such reattribution could be seen in the fall of the Holy City. Vs. 13 proves that the preceding statements do come from the mouth of God."
• 

  AuldSoul

  And, what does the rest of that portion of the Anchor Bible Commentary say?

  Also, you are incorrect that 22:8 is a continuation of 22:7. You can't have it both ways, either it is a break (full stop) or it is not.

  While I was seeing and hearing, I fell down at the feet of the one showing me these things. (<--- notice the construction)

  "When I had seen and heard, I fell down at the feet of the one who had been showing me these things." (<--- is he still showing me these things or has he now stopped showing me these things?)

  Tell you what, you just point out to me what it is that is revealed after 22:7 and I will agree that the revelation does not stop at 22:7. That should be easy enough.