Revelation 21:22

Rev. 21:22 Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Sun Dec 19 08:16:36 EST 1999

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Rev. 21:22 Greetings to all,Looking at the Greek text of Rev. 21:22 makes me wonder how this verse fits in with the GS rule. The text says:hO GAR KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR NAOS AUTHS ESTIN KAI TO ARNION.My questions are–is hO PANTOKRATWR in apposition to hO GAR KURIOS hO QEOS? Is Rev. 21:22 an example of the GS rule? What is the meaning (signification) of KAI in Rev. 21:22?Thanks,Edgar Foster

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCHRev. 21:22

Rev. 21:22 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 19 08:35:16 EST 1999

 

Rev. 21:22 KJV vs AV Edgar Foster:>Looking at the Greek text of Rev. 21:22 makes me wonder how this verse fits>in with the GS rule. The text says:> >hO GAR KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR NAOS AUTHS ESTIN KAI TO ARNION.> >My questions are–is hO PANTOKRATWR in apposition to hO GAR KURIOS hO QEOS?>Is Rev. 21:22 an example of the GS rule? What is the meaning (signification)>of KAI in Rev. 21:22?While this might conceivably be called apposition (that’s the way I explainthis kind of attributive construction), it really is the regular type ofattributive add-on to a noun. I take it that here NAOS AUTHS is thepredicate word and that KURIOS is the subject; then ho QEOS and hOPANTOKRATWR, as I would understand the construction are TWO add-onattributive expressions belonging with KURIOS, understanding KURIOS herenot as a title but as the proper name commonly conveying the Hebrewtetragram when used in Greek without an article; hO QEOS also seems to beused as a proper name (inasmuch, particularly, as we find it so often usedas a vocative in the LXX either in the nominative case-form or as” W QEE”).Standard English pretty much has to convey this attributive sequence asapposition: “The Lord God Ruler of all.” I don’t think the GS rule hasanything to do with this phraseology.As for KAI, I would take it as a simple conjunction used to add a secondsubject to the predicate of the original clause (to NAOS AUTHS ESTIN). Isuppose it would be POSSIBLE to punctuate with a comma after ESTIN andunderstand TO ARNION as an appositive to KURIOS hO QEOS hOPANTOKRATWR–with KAI having adverbial force (“even the Lamb”), but to mepersonally, that seems far less natural than reading TO ARNION as anappended second subject linked to the first with the KAI.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Rev. 21:22KJV vs AV

Rev. 21:22 Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Mon Dec 20 10:06:18 EST 1999

 

MARTUROUNTES, 1 Jo. 5:7 KJV / AV Carl Conrad writes:>>As for KAI, I would take it as a simple conjunction used to add a secondsubject to the predicate of the original clause (to NAOS AUTHS ESTIN). Isuppose it would be POSSIBLE to punctuate with a comma after ESTIN andunderstand TO ARNION as an appositive to KURIOS hO QEOS hOPANTOKRATWR–with KAI having adverbial force (“even the Lamb”), but to mepersonally, that seems far less natural than reading TO ARNION as anappended second subject linked to the first with the KAI.<<Could KAI be used adjunctively, in Rev. 21:22? Whether its used adjunctively or as a simple additive, can one properly conclude that the author of Revelation is drawing a line of demarcation between hO PANTOKRATWR and TO ARNION? Now I have no desire to get involved in a full-blown Christological discussion, nor am I asking you to agree with any implications I may draw from this verse. My question concerns the grammar. Is it reasonable to conclude that the writer might be saying that while two persons constitute the temple of the city, hO PANTOKRATWR and TO ARNION are to be differentiated in some way?Regards,Edgar Foster

 

MARTUROUNTES, 1 Jo. 5:7KJV / AV

God and the Lamb, the temple (Rev. 21:22) David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Thu Jun 25 15:12:17 EDT 1998

 

Throne of God and of the Lamb 1 Tim 2:12 It looks as though God Almighty and the Lamb are seen as one in the templeof the Holy City (Rev. 21:22). ARNION in the nominative here fairlydefinitely identifies His relationship to the temple with that of GodAlmighty. It is interesting that the verb here, ESTIN, is singular,whereas both God Almighty and the Lamb are mentioned as being the temple.Does this have to do simply with how the sentence is constructed, or is ita turn of speech purposely designed to stress their unity?David L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

Throne of God and of the Lamb1 Tim 2:12

God and the Lamb, the temple (Rev. 21:22) David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Thu Jun 25 15:12:17 EDT 1998

 

Throne of God and of the Lamb 1 Tim 2:12 It looks as though God Almighty and the Lamb are seen as one in the templeof the Holy City (Rev. 21:22). ARNION in the nominative here fairlydefinitely identifies His relationship to the temple with that of GodAlmighty. It is interesting that the verb here, ESTIN, is singular,whereas both God Almighty and the Lamb are mentioned as being the temple.Does this have to do simply with how the sentence is constructed, or is ita turn of speech purposely designed to stress their unity?David L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

Throne of God and of the Lamb1 Tim 2:12

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>