“Torrey’s historical view that all of the… [intended: 4 Gospels]… was written before 50 CE is not followed by any critical scholars”
Dating the Apocalypse
** you do not have permission to see this link **
What is crucial is the question of why the date under the Roman emperor Domitian has become so widely accepted.
It seems in many circles to be an issue one dares not question.
And yet, in recent years, a number of highly reputable scholars are reconsidering the party line and have come out in favor of the pre-70 position.
Major New Testament scholars such as C. F. D. Moule^8, Joseph Fitzmyer^9, F. F. Bruce^10, E. Earle Ellis^11, and J. A. T. Robinson^12 have all recently supported the early date position.^13
Moreover, this is far from novel.
In reality, these writers are merely returning to what was once the foregone conclusion of nearly the entire New Testament studies world.
As Wilson notes, “Throughout the nineteenth century the majority of New Testament scholars favored a pre-70 dating of the Book of Revelation.”^14
Robinson echoes, “It is indeed a little known fact that this [a pre-70 date] was what Hort calls ‘the general tendency of criticism’ for most of the nineteenth century… .”^15
Indeed Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, and a host of others held strongly to an early dating of the book,^16 so much so that one author in Lightfoot’s day agreed this date to be “_universally accepted by all competent critics_.”^17
Why is it that proponents of non-consensus views always assume there’s some conspiracy of silence?
The reason to date Revelation in the 90s seems logical enough. It was the time of one of the few empire wide persections of Christians. That would provide an appropriate milieu for composition.
There was a suggestion once that Revelation was an early Jewish apocalypse subsequently “Christianized”, but I don’t think anyone favors that view anymore.
“Why is it that proponents of non-consensus views always assume there’s some conspiracy of silence?”
I dunno– why?
(because if there’s a consensus, there’s little discussion of “non-consensus views”?)
“The reason to date Revelation in the 90s seems logical enough.
It was the time of one of the few empire wide persections of Christians.
That would provide an appropriate milieu for composition”
What was the largest extent of Roman persecution of Christians in the AD 60s?
When was this written?:
a)
Revelation 11 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told,
“Go and measure the temple of God and the altar,
with its worshipers.
2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it,
because it has been given to the Gentiles.
They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.
b)
Mark 13:14 (New Living)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“The day is coming when you will see the sacrilegious object
that causes desecration standing where he should not be.”
(Reader, pay attention!)
“Then those in Judea must flee to the hills.
(Young’s Literal)
‘And when ye may see the abomination of the desolation,
that was spoken of by Daniel the prophet,
standing where it ought not,
(whoever is reading let him understand),
then those in Judea, let them flee to the mountains;
c)
Revelation 17:10 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
They are also seven kings.
Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come;
but when he does come,
he must remain for only a little while.
“The gospel of Matthew was written decades after Paul’s death”
– ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Evidence?
====================
The Mark 7:26 Aramaic has “kh-n-p-th-a” — godless, Gentile, heathen, foreigner, profane. Lexeme 1:1096 appears in
Matthew 6:7, 10:5, 18:17
Mark 7:26
John 7:35
Acts 18:4, 18:17
1Cor 5:1, 10:20, 10:27, 12:2
1Peter 4:3
Greek mss. have ‘politically-correct’ references to non-Judeans, and have a particular place’s more-current name;
the Aramaic Peshitta has ‘politically-_in_correct’ references to non-Judeans, and has a particular place’s antiquated name:
Norton, William. 1889. _A Translation, in English Daily Used, of the Peshi to-Syriac Text, and of the Received Greek Text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, With an Introduction on the Peshitto-Syriac Text, and the Revised Greek Text of 1881_ (London: W. K. Bloom), ~140pp. What’s below is from a Google books copy; the book is also at
** you do not have permission to see this link **
In the Introduction, pages l – li:
In the names of places, the Peshito shows the same independence of the Greek. . . . . in Acts xxi. 7, the Gk. has, Ptolemais; the Syriac has, Acu.
Mr. Jer. Jones, in his work on the Canon, 1798, contends that the use of the name Acu, for Ptolemais, is a decisive proof that the Peshito must have been made not far in time from A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. (vol. i. p. 103. ) He says that the most ancient name of this place among the Israelites was Aco, or Acco, Judges i. 31; that this name was afterwards changed to Ptolemais; that some say it had its new name from Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 250 B. C. He says it is certain that the old name Aco, was antiquated and out of use in the time of the Romans, and that the use of the old name Acu, in the Peshito, can be accounted for in no other way, but by supposing that the persons for whom the version was made were more acquainted with it, than with the new name Ptolemais; that upon any other supposition it would have been absurd for him to have used Acu. He says, that until the destruction of Jerusalem, one may suppose that the Jews may have retained the old name Aco still, out of fondness for its antiquity; but, he says,
“how they, or any other part of Syria, could, after the Roman conquest, call it by a name different from the Romans, seems to me impossible to conceive. . . To suppose, therefore, that this translation, in which we meet with this old name, instead of the new one, was made at any great distance of time after the destruction of Jerusalem, is to suppose the translator to have substituted an antiquated name known to but few, for a name well known to all” (pp. 104, 105. )
Mr. Jones says that a similar proof that the Peshito cannot have been made much after A.D. 70, is found in the fact that the Peshito often calls the Gentiles, as the Jews were accustomed to do, _profane persons_, where the Greek calls them _the nations_, that is, the Gentiles. The Peshito calls them profane, in Matt. vi. 7; x. 5; xviii.17; Mark vii. 26; John vii. 35; Acts xviii.4, 17; 1 Cor. v. 1; x. 20, 27; xii. 2; 1 Pet. iv.3. The expression is used, therefore, throughout the Peshito. Mr. Jones says, that it shows that the writer was a Jew, for no other person would have called all the world profane; and that after the destruction of the temple, all Hebrew Christians must have seen that other nations were not to be reckoned unclean and profane in the Jewish sense, and that therefore this version must have been made either before, or soon after, A.D. 70. (On Canon, Vol. i., pp. 106-110.)
Do you agree with the reasoning in the last sentence here?:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Most scholars assume it [Matthew] was written between 80 and 90 CE, at least 60 years after Jesus’s death.
Why?
First, it refers in several verses to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Roman imperial army (22:7, 21:41, 22:4, 23:38).
Since we know this happened in 70 CE, Matthew must have been written after that date.
=======================
Do you think these phrases were written _after_ such had occurred?:
[26]”the Messiah will be cut off”
[26]”will destroy the city and the sanctuary”
[27]”he will put an end to sacrifice and offering”
[27]”on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation”
Daniel 9 (Berean Standard)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
23 At the beginning of your petitions, an answer went out, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly precious.
So consider the message and understand the vision:
24 Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city to stop their transgression, to put an end to sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
25 Know and understand this: From the issuance of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until the Messiah, the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of distress.
26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing.
Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed.
27 And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation, until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Bo Reicke begins a recent essay with the words:
“An amazing example of uncritical dogmatism in New Testament studies is the belief that the Synoptic Gospels should be dated after the Jewish War of AD 66-70 because they contain prophecies _ex eventu_ of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“The longer ending of the Gospel of Mark is present in virtually all of the surviving manuscripts.
However the two oldest and best manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, lack the longer ending.
Supporting their testimony is the fact that we have a bunch of Latin, Syrian, Georgian, and Armenian manuscripts that end in with Mark 16:8.
The best reason to reject the longer ending is tht it directly contradicts what went before.
8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
The Intermediate Ending of Mark
And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter.
And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.
Amen.
The Long Ending of Mark
9 Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.
10 She went out and told those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping.”
======================
The Johaninne Comma and the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman weren’t in the original NT, since they aren’t in the Peshitta NT.
Mark 16:9-20
Regarding the ‘long ending of Mark,’ the Diatesseron shows that practically all of it was present as of A.D. 175.
It’s also in the original Aramaic of the Peshitta.
The HCSB notes that concerning Mark 16:9-20, “other mss omit” it.
The Peshitta has the text for Mark 16:9-20, with the exception that it lacks the addition of “with their hands” in verse 18.
Here’s that addition:
Mark 16:18 (HCSB)
they will pick up snakes;[a: Other mss add _with their hands_]
Below is the Peshitta’s Mark 16:9-20, interleaved with corresponding Diatesseron extracts where applicable.
Peshitta Mark 16:9 (based on Younan of Peshitta.org, also at dukhrana.com)
And at early morning on the first of the week he had risen
and appeared first to Maryam of Magdala,
she that from whom he had cast out seven shadiyn [devils].
Compare:
Diatesseron 53:25
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And on the First-day on which he rose,
he appeared first unto Mary Magdalene,
from whom he had cast out seven demons.
Peshitta Mark 16:10
And she went (and) sebarth [brought hope]
to those who had been with him,
who were mourning and weeping.
Compare
Diatesseron 53:35
And those women returned, and told all that
to the eleven, and to the rest of the disciples;
and to those that had been with him,
for they were saddened and weeping.
Peshitta Mark 16:11
And when they heard what they were saying,
that he was alive and had appeared to them,
they did not believe them.
Compare:
Diatesseron 53:37
And they, when they heard them say
that he was alive and had appeared unto them,
did not believe them:
Peshitta Mark 16:12
After these things,
he appeared to two of them in another form
while they were walking and going to a village.
Compare:
Diatesseron 53:39
And after that,
he appeared to two of them, on that day,
and while they were going to the village. . . .
Peshitta Mark 16:13
And those went (and) told the rest, (and) they did not even believe them.
Peshitta Mark 16:14
And finally he appeared to the eleven while they were reclining,
and he reviled the lack of their faith
and the hardness of their hearts,
since those who had seen him, that he had risen,
they did not believe them.
Compare:
Diatesseron 55:3
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And while they sat there he appeared to them again,
and upbraided them for their lack of faith
and the hardness of their hearts,
those that saw him when he was risen,
and believed not.
Peshitta Mark 16:15a
And he said to them,
Compare:
Diatesseron 55:4
Then said Jesus unto them,. . . .
Peshitta Mark 16:15b
“Go into all the ailma [world]
and preach my Sebartha [Message/ Hope] to all of creation.
Compare:
Diatesseron 55:5
Go now into all the world,
and preach my gospel in all the creation;
Peshitta Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will live,
and whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Compare
Diatesseron 55:8
For whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but whosoever believeth not shall be rejected.
Peshitta Mark 16:17-18
And these signs will follow those who believe:
in my name they will cast out shada [devils]
and they will speak in new tongues,
and they will handle serpents,
and if they should drink a deadly poison
it will not harm them.
And they will place their hands on the sick,
and they will be healed.”
Compare:
Diatesseron 55:9-10
And the signs which shall attend those that believe in me are these:
that they shall cast out devils in my name;
and they shall speak with new tongues;
and they shall take up serpents,
and if they drink deadly poison,
it shall not injure them;
and they shall lay their hands on the diseased,
and they shall be healed.
Peshitta Mark 16:19
And Maran [our Lord] Yeshua,
after speaking with them,
went up to heaven
and sat at the right hand of Allaha.
Compare:
Diatesseron 55:12-13
And our Lord Jesus,
after speaking to them. . .
ascended into heaven,
and sat down at the right hand of God.
Peshitta Mark 16:20
And they went out
and preached in all places.
And Maran was helping them
and establishing their words by the signs that they were doing.
Compare:
Diatesseron 55:16
And from thence they went forth,
and preached in every place;
and our Lord helped them,
and confirmed their sayings by the signs which they did.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“I’ve always loved the poetry one finds in the Bible, and ‘The Song of Songs’ has always been a favorite.”
Special Features of the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament
** you do not have permission to see this link **
…another instance of Janus Parallelism appears in Mt 13:31-32:
He [Yeshua] spoke another mathla [parable] in figure to them and said,
“The kingdom of heaven is likened to a grain of mustard seed
that a man took (and) sowed in his field.
And it is smaller than all the small seeds,
but when it grows it is greater than all the small herbs,
and becomes a tree
so that the birds [or: blossoms/flowers]
of heaven come (and) nest in its branches.”
This has Janus Parallelism poetry, since the Aramaic word rendered ‘birds’ can also mean blossoms/flowers.
Hence, one way to read the poem would be to focus on the plant aspects:
seed – sowed in field – seeds – grows – herbs – tree – blossoms/flowers – in branches.
Another way to read the poem would be to focus on the bird aspects:
tree – birds of heaven – nest in branches.
Cyrus Gordon located a Janus parallelism in the Song of Songs 2:12, where the word for “pruning” can also mean “singing”– see Lataster on poetry.
Song of Songs 2:12 (NIV), my bracket
Flowers appear on the earth;
the season of singing [or: pruning] has come,
the cooing of doves
is heard in our land.
Here are two possible ways of focusing on certain aspects of the poem:
flowers – earth – season – pruning – land.
____________ – season – singing – cooing – heard.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“The Gospel of John is causing me to lose my religion”
Which is/was what?
“since my religion didn’t seem to mind canonizing the gospel of John despite the differences with the synoptic gospels.
1. The resurrection of Lazarus is missing in the synoptic gospels”
Do any of the synoptic gospels have material that’s missing from John?
If ‘yes,’ what if anything do you conclude from that?
“2. The woman caught in adultery is in the gospel of John but not in the synoptics, but you, Bart, said it wasn’t original to the gospel”
The “woman caught in adultery” account wasn’t in the original version of John, the original version of John being in the Peshitta.
“3. Before the last supper, Jesus insists this bread is his flesh which he will give for the life of the world. (Jn 6:51).
The Synoptics does not show Jesus teaching about his flesh is bread before the Last Supper”
Do any of the synoptics “show Jesus teaching about his flesh is bread” _during_ the Last Supper?
“5. The Synoptics are happy during the first parts of the gospel: tell John the blind see the lame walk but Gospel of John shows early Jesus is the sacrificial lamb that takes away sins”
What’s the significance of that?
“6. You must be born again before you see the kingdom vs You will see the kingdom coming on clouds”
Which if any of the 12 disciples were in a position to witness Jesus saying, “You will see the kingdom coming on clouds”? (_only_ John?)
“4. Before Abraham, I AM (jn 8:58) and I had glory with God before the world existed (Jn 17:5)”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“I AM” in the Peshitta
When the New Testament was translated from its original Aramaic into Greek, some information was lost, including the presence of many instances of “I AM” statements.
In the Aramaic it is two instances of “ana”– “I”– back to back.
The letters are “ana ana,” pronounced “ena na,” and can be translated as “It is I” or “I AM.”
One translator, Glenn David Bauscher, says that 97% of the time in the Old Testament, “ENA-NA” is said by YHWH.
It is a similar situation in the New Testament, where the overwhelming percent of the time, “ena-na” appears to be Yeshua hinting at his being YHWH.
Rarely, it is someone else making an appeal to being God, or someone apparently suggesting that the Meshikha/ Messiah is YHWH, or someone merely saying “It is I”/ “It’s me.”
To illustrate the very last category, see Lk 1:19 (when the angelic messenger Gabriel speaks), and Jn 9:9 (when a blind man who Yeshua healed speaks).
I invite you to pull out your New Testament and look at each of these instances, and if you have questions, examine the interlinear translation at peshitta.org:
ENA-NA’s and ena-na’s in Mt – Acts 16, in the Peshitta
Mt 14:27, 22:32, 24:5
Mk 6:50, 12:26, 13:6, 14:62
Lk 1:19, 8:9, 21:8, 22:70, 24:36
Jn 1:20, 4:26;
6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51;
8:12, 24, 28, 58;
9:9;
10:7, 9, 11, 14;
11:25; 13:19; 14:6;
15:1, 5;
18:5, 6, 8, 37
Acts 7:32, 8:9, 9:5
Are you aware of any refutation of either of the 2 books mentioned below?
Jonathan Bernier, _Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament_ (2022), 318pp., on 280
The reality is that with the publication of this work, two complete, monograph-length studies have been published since the turn of the twentieth century by professional biblical scholars who defend lower chronology for the composition dates of the New Testament corpus, while there have been zero similar studies defending middle or higher chronologies.
John A.T. Robinson, _Redating the New Testament_ (1976), 369pp.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“Mark has been dated after AD 70”
Is it the case that the book of Daniel “describes the destruction of Jerusalem”?
John A.T. Robinson, _Redating the New Testament_ (1976), 369pp., on 14
amazon .com/dp/1579105270?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Bo Reicke begins a recent essay with the words:
“An amazing example of uncritical dogmatism in New Testament studies is the belief that the Synoptic Gospels should be dated after the Jewish War of AD 66-70 because they contain prophecies _ex eventu_ of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70.”
[B. Reicke, ‘Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem’, in D. W. Aune (ed.), _Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Alien P. Wikgren (NovTest_ Suppl. 33), Leiden 1972, 121-34.]
Colin Brown, _Jesus in European Protestant Thought, 1778-1860_ (1984), 177-178
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 177
Griesbach proceeded to define this thesis more precisely by fifteen propositions which may be summarized as follows:
(1) Mark generally followed Matthew.
(2) But occasionally he preferred Luke.
(3) Where he stuck closely to Matthew, he did not lose sight of Luke, and vice versa.
(4) He sought brevity.
(5) This goal led him to omit things that did not pertain to Jesus’ public office as a Teacher.
(6) He passed over the longer sermons contained in both Matthew and Luke, thus omitting an entire third of Luke.
(7) He wrote for non-Jewish readers, for whom the rules and regulations of Palestinian Jews and especially the Pharisees were hardly known.
(8) For this reason he cut out of Matthew and Luke things concerning Jews alone or related to their way of thinking.
(9) He was more sparing in his quotation of Old Testament texts.
(10) But he added for the sake of illustration things that he thought useful.
(11) He often preserved the same formulas, phrases, and constructions.
(12) But Mark did not copy their books word for word, for he told in his own way what he read in them.
(13) Mark frequently paraphrased and said in his own words more briefly and distinctly what was handed down to him.
(14) He added to that material details which he thought would be of interest to his readers.
(15) He also added a few, brief stories of his own, for reasons that the reader could readily discern.
hat tip
Scott Hahn & Jeffrey Morrow, _Modern Biblical Criticism as a Tool of Statecraft (1700-1900)_ (2020), 312pp., on 167
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The statement
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”
needs only one slight correction to be meaningful in this context;
“He gave it _to_ His only begotten Son.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
19. The Father “has given all things into Jesus’ hands.” (John 13:3) …
30. “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hands.” (John 3:35) …
37. “Of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36)
Joh 3:16 (looking at interlinear of the Aramaic)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
so
For
loved
God
the world
even
d’lbrh [that to his-son]
only-begotten/ unique
he would give (it),
that whoever
he/ he who
will believe
in him
not
will be destroyed
but
will have
lh [to-him]
life
d’l-ai-l-m [that/of to the world/age].
The Hebrew/Aramaic ‘amen’ can mean ‘continuing.’
The Greek New Testament (the bulk of which– including the book of Revelation– was translated from Aramaic), talks about glory, praise etc. being to God ‘to the age of ages, continuing’/ ‘to the world of worlds, continuing.’
There’s no mention of people being tortured ‘to the age of ages, continuing.’
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Philippians 4:20 To our God and Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Galatians 1:5 All glory to God forever and ever! Amen.
1 Peter 5:11 To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Revelation 7:12 Blessing and glory and wisdom… and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!”
Revelation 1:6 who has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father– to Him… be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
1 Peter 4:11 …through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, the only God, be honor… and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
2 Timothy 4:18 And the Lord will rescue me from every evil action and bring me safely into His… heavenly kingdom.
To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Hebrews 13:21 …through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Ephesians 3:21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all… generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
Romans 11:36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be… glory for ever. Amen.
Revelation 11:15 …this world is become our Lord’s and his Christ’s, and he shall reign for ever and ever. Amen.
Revelation 5:13 (YLT)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
13 and every creature that is in the heaven, and in the earth, and under the earth, and the things that are upon the sea, and the all things in them, heard I saying,
‘To Him who is sitting upon the throne, and to the Lamb, [is] the blessing, and the honour, and the glory, and the might– to the ages of the ages!’
14 and the four living creatures said, ‘Amen!’
and the twenty-four elders fell down and they bow before Him who is living to the ages of the ages.
Romans 16:27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.
Romans 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served… the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Romans 9:5 …Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him… be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Jude 1:25 to the only God our Savior… be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
Matthew 6:13 For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Psalm 150:6 …the powers of the heavens do praise thee, and thine is the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Speculative linguistic conjecture
αμην
Psalm 139:13
«Knit me together» is the phrase. Greek was supposedly and originally written backwards, right to left like how Hebrew and Aramaic was.
The divine Greek word αμην spelled backwards is νήμα: thread, yarn, to spin like knitting?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The alphabets look like a mess of strings.
How do you think Philippians 2:10-11 should be translated?
Keith Giles, How Evangelicals Changed The Bible To Support Their Beliefs – February 17, 2021
** you do not have permission to see this link **
…the word “gladly” was removed from Philippians 2:10-11 which should read:
“…that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should gladly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
…
the Greek word “exomologeō” [which literally means “to acknowledge openly and joyfully”] …
** you do not have permission to see this link **
–>
** you do not have permission to see this link **
ydy verb C
ydy vb. C to give thanks; to confess
C
1 to praise BA-Da, Syr, LJLA. –(a) to praise with thanks Palm, Qum, JLAtg, PTA, CPA, Sam, Syr, JBA, JBAg, LJLA. (a.1) to offer thanks JLAtg. –(b) to speak on behalf of Syr.
2 to confess Gal, Sam, Syr, JBA, Man, LJLA. –(a) to confess faith Syr.
3 to consent, acknowledge OfA-Sam, Qum, Jud, JLAtg, Gal, CPA. –(a) to concede, agree OfA, Gal, Syr, JBA. –(b) to acknowledge a debt Jud, JBA.
Gt to be praised Sam.
Dt to confess Syr.
Ct 1 to be acknowledged, admitted Syr. –(a) (faith) to be confessed Syr.
2 (philos.) to be predicated Syr.
How did Philemon 1:12 originally read?
Philemon 1:12 (King James)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: [Greek: 4698. splagchnon]
Philemon 1:12
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(Etheridge) and I have sent him to thee. But thou, as (one) who is my offspring, so receive him.
(Murdock) And receive thou him, as one begotten by me.
(Lamsa) I send him to you again: welcome him as my own boy:
When 1 Peter 5:2 was originally written, did it:
mention ‘heart’?
have ‘God’ once, or twice?
1 Peter 5:2
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(Berean Literal)
Shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but willingly according to God; and not for base gain but eagerly,
(Young’s Literal)
feed the flock of God that is among you, overseeing not constrainedly, but willingly, neither for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind,
(Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
Shepherd the flock of God that follows you
and give care spiritually,
not by compulsion,
but with pleasure,
not by defiled profit,
but with all your heart,
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(Etheridge) feed the flock of Aloha which is delivered to you,
and take care (of it) spiritually,[Vasuru ruchonoith.]
not by constraint,
but with the will;
not for corrupt gain,
but with all your heart;
(Murdock) Feed ye the flock of God which is committed to you:
have care [for it], spiritually;
not from compulsion,
but voluntarily;
not for base gain,
but with all your heart;
4290. prothumós
** you do not have permission to see this link **
prothumós: Willing, eager, ready
Original Word: πρόθυμος
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: prothumós
Pronunciation: pro-thoo-mos’
Phonetic Spelling: (proth-oo’-moce)
Definition: Willing, eager, ready
Meaning: readily, eagerly, with a ready mind, cheerfully.
Word Origin: Derived from πρό (pro, “before”) and θυμός (thumos, “passion” or “spirit”)
Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: While there is no direct Hebrew equivalent for “prothumós,” the concept of willingness and eagerness can be found in Hebrew words like נָדִיב (nadiv, “willing” or “noble”) and חָפֵץ (chaphets, “delight” or “desire”).
Usage: The Greek word “prothumós” conveys a sense of readiness and eagerness, often used to describe a willing spirit or a readiness to act.
It implies a proactive attitude and a zealous disposition towards a task or duty.
In the New Testament, it is used to describe the attitude of believers who are eager to serve and follow God’s will.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, virtues such as eagerness and willingness were highly valued, especially in the context of service and duty.
The concept of being “prothumós” would resonate with early Christians who were called to be zealous in their faith and service to others.
This term reflects the early Christian emphasis on a heart willing to serve God and others, contrasting with a reluctant or grudging attitude.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)