[] REv 9:17 Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Fri Dec 26 10:25:47 EST 2003
[] REv 9:17 [] REv 9:17 I think that ECONTAS belongs to the KATHMENOUS. With KAI hAI KEFALAI TWNhIPPWN the writer calls our attention to the horses again.Secondly: I am not sure, but I think a horse cannot wear a QWRAX.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: “Ron Snider” <ronpt at comcast.net>Aan: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: vrijdag 26 december 2003 16:02Onderwerp: [] REv 9:17> Thanks for the previous responses, but would now like to get the take on> the participle ECHONTAS in Rev. 9:17. The near antecedent is the> participle KATHEMENOUS (the ones sitting), but the term HIPPOUS is also> masculine, and seems to be the thrust of what John is describing.> > Can one make a definitive case one way or the other?> > Ron Snider> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >
[] REv 9:17[] REv 9:17
[] REv 9:17 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Fri Dec 26 10:46:37 EST 2003
[] REv 9:17 [] REv 9:17 It is good to have the text before us. Rev. 9″17hOUTWS EIDON TOUS hIPPOUS EN THi hORASEI KAI TOUS KAQHMENOUS EP’ AUTWN, ECONTAS QWRAKAS PURINOUS KAI hUAKINQINOUS KAI QEIWDEIS, KAI hAI KEFALAI TWN hIPPWN hWS KEFALAI LEONTWN, KAI EK TWN STOMATWN AUTWN EKPOOREUETAI PUR KAI KAPNOS KAI QEION.The positioning of the description of the riders and the fact that the breastplates are more appropriate to the riders than the horses is, no doubt, the reason that the translators have interpreted EXONTAS as describing the riders. There are differences in the punctuation. The punctuation in the UBS supports this tranlation.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College.
[] REv 9:17[] REv 9:17
[] REv 9:17 Ron Snider ronpt at comcast.net
Fri Dec 26 10:02:32 EST 2003
[] Rev. 9:14 [] REv 9:17 Thanks for the previous responses, but would now like to get the take onthe participle ECHONTAS in Rev. 9:17. The near antecedent is theparticiple KATHEMENOUS (the ones sitting), but the term HIPPOUS is alsomasculine, and seems to be the thrust of what John is describing.Can one make a definitive case one way or the other?Ron Snider
[] Rev. 9:14[] REv 9:17
[] REv 9:17 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Fri Dec 26 10:46:37 EST 2003
[] REv 9:17 [] REv 9:17 It is good to have the text before us. Rev. 9″17hOUTWS EIDON TOUS hIPPOUS EN THi hORASEI KAI TOUS KAQHMENOUS EP’ AUTWN, ECONTAS QWRAKAS PURINOUS KAI hUAKINQINOUS KAI QEIWDEIS, KAI hAI KEFALAI TWN hIPPWN hWS KEFALAI LEONTWN, KAI EK TWN STOMATWN AUTWN EKPOOREUETAI PUR KAI KAPNOS KAI QEION.The positioning of the description of the riders and the fact that the breastplates are more appropriate to the riders than the horses is, no doubt, the reason that the translators have interpreted EXONTAS as describing the riders. There are differences in the punctuation. The punctuation in the UBS supports this tranlation.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College.
[] REv 9:17[] REv 9:17
[] REv 9:17 Ron Snider ronpt at comcast.net
Fri Dec 26 10:02:32 EST 2003
[] Rev. 9:14 [] REv 9:17 Thanks for the previous responses, but would now like to get the take onthe participle ECHONTAS in Rev. 9:17. The near antecedent is theparticiple KATHEMENOUS (the ones sitting), but the term HIPPOUS is alsomasculine, and seems to be the thrust of what John is describing.Can one make a definitive case one way or the other?Ron Snider
[] Rev. 9:14[] REv 9:17
[] REv 9:17 Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Fri Dec 26 10:25:47 EST 2003
[] REv 9:17 [] REv 9:17 I think that ECONTAS belongs to the KATHMENOUS. With KAI hAI KEFALAI TWNhIPPWN the writer calls our attention to the horses again.Secondly: I am not sure, but I think a horse cannot wear a QWRAX.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: “Ron Snider” <ronpt at comcast.net>Aan: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: vrijdag 26 december 2003 16:02Onderwerp: [] REv 9:17> Thanks for the previous responses, but would now like to get the take on> the participle ECHONTAS in Rev. 9:17. The near antecedent is the> participle KATHEMENOUS (the ones sitting), but the term HIPPOUS is also> masculine, and seems to be the thrust of what John is describing.> > Can one make a definitive case one way or the other?> > Ron Snider> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >
[] REv 9:17[] REv 9:17
[] REv 9:17 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Fri Dec 26 10:48:06 EST 2003
[] REv 9:17 [] John 1:18b question (and John 1:8) In a message dated 12/26/2003 10:24:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, dirkzwager at pandora.be writes:I think that ECONTAS belongs to the KATHMENOUS. With KAI hAI KEFALAI TWNhIPPWN the writer calls our attention to the horses again.Secondly: I am not sure, but I think a horse cannot wear a QWRAX._____________The Parthian horse was armored. See at http://parthia.com/parthia_horses_burris.htm”Assuming the title King of Kings, an Old Persian title, Mithradates II stretched the Parthian empire to its farthest corners. He conquered Characene and recaptured Babylon and Mesopotamia from the Seleucids. He defeated the western Saka, a Scythian tribe related to the old Massagatae, freeing the empire from their depredations. An encounter between the Sakas and Parthians must have been a truly terrible fight, and one can only assume that the presence of the Parthian horse was the deciding factor in the outcome of the battle since both sides fought alike. They were both mounted horseman charging each other in the heat of battle, firing rapidly, deadly and effectively. Both the Sakas and Parthians used chain mail protection on their horses, and Parthian armor was very similar to Scythian armor with plaited rings laced together. The only major difference between the two combatants was the size of their horses. The Sakas on their sleek Akhal-Tekes or sturdy Mongolian-type ponies were a fierce determined people, but the Parthians on their stronger, faster horses were equally determined. The Parthian army proved itself superior to the Sakas, who never really threatened Parthia again.”gfsomsel
[] REv 9:17[] John 1:18b question (and John 1:8)
[] REv 9:17 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Fri Dec 26 10:48:06 EST 2003
[] REv 9:17 [] John 1:18b question (and John 1:8) In a message dated 12/26/2003 10:24:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, dirkzwager at pandora.be writes:I think that ECONTAS belongs to the KATHMENOUS. With KAI hAI KEFALAI TWNhIPPWN the writer calls our attention to the horses again.Secondly: I am not sure, but I think a horse cannot wear a QWRAX._____________The Parthian horse was armored. See at http://parthia.com/parthia_horses_burris.htm”Assuming the title King of Kings, an Old Persian title, Mithradates II stretched the Parthian empire to its farthest corners. He conquered Characene and recaptured Babylon and Mesopotamia from the Seleucids. He defeated the western Saka, a Scythian tribe related to the old Massagatae, freeing the empire from their depredations. An encounter between the Sakas and Parthians must have been a truly terrible fight, and one can only assume that the presence of the Parthian horse was the deciding factor in the outcome of the battle since both sides fought alike. They were both mounted horseman charging each other in the heat of battle, firing rapidly, deadly and effectively. Both the Sakas and Parthians used chain mail protection on their horses, and Parthian armor was very similar to Scythian armor with plaited rings laced together. The only major difference between the two combatants was the size of their horses. The Sakas on their sleek Akhal-Tekes or sturdy Mongolian-type ponies were a fierce determined people, but the Parthians on their stronger, faster horses were equally determined. The Parthian army proved itself superior to the Sakas, who never really threatened Parthia again.”gfsomsel
[] REv 9:17[] John 1:18b question (and John 1:8)
[] REv 9:17 mrt mrt at hisurfer.net
Fri Dec 26 11:29:48 EST 2003
[] REv 9:17 [] REv 9:17 Up a ways in the same chapter we have QWRAX (9:9) again, but strangelyenough it is the AKRIDWN (locusts 9:7) that are wearing them.This is not to negate anything previously said… just FYI.Michael TarverOregon<‘>< laus Deo—– Original Message —– From: “Ron Snider” <ronpt at comcast.net>To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 7:02 AMSubject: [] REv 9:17> Thanks for the previous responses, but would now like to get the take on> the participle ECHONTAS in Rev. 9:17. The near antecedent is the> participle KATHEMENOUS (the ones sitting), but the term HIPPOUS is also> masculine, and seems to be the thrust of what John is describing.> > Can one make a definitive case one way or the other?> > Ron Snider> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] REv 9:17[] REv 9:17
[] REv 9:17 mrt mrt at hisurfer.net
Fri Dec 26 11:29:48 EST 2003
[] REv 9:17 [] REv 9:17 Up a ways in the same chapter we have QWRAX (9:9) again, but strangelyenough it is the AKRIDWN (locusts 9:7) that are wearing them.This is not to negate anything previously said… just FYI.Michael TarverOregon<‘>< laus Deo—– Original Message —– From: “Ron Snider” <ronpt at comcast.net>To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 7:02 AMSubject: [] REv 9:17> Thanks for the previous responses, but would now like to get the take on> the participle ECHONTAS in Rev. 9:17. The near antecedent is the> participle KATHEMENOUS (the ones sitting), but the term HIPPOUS is also> masculine, and seems to be the thrust of what John is describing.> > Can one make a definitive case one way or the other?> > Ron Snider> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] REv 9:17[] REv 9:17
[] REv 9:17 Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Fri Dec 26 15:38:56 EST 2003
[] REv 9:17 [] REv 9:17 As far as I can see “lower” animals like locusts and crustacea have a QWRAXin Greek. But in my dictionaries I can not find the word for the armour of ahorse – until now.Dr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: “mrt” <mrt at hisurfer.net>Aan: “b-Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: vrijdag 26 december 2003 17:29Onderwerp: Re: [] REv 9:17> Up a ways in the same chapter we have QWRAX (9:9) again, but strangely> enough it is the AKRIDWN (locusts 9:7) that are wearing them.> > This is not to negate anything previously said… just FYI.> > Michael Tarver> Oregon> <‘>< laus Deo> —– Original Message —–> From: “Ron Snider” <ronpt at comcast.net>> To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 7:02 AM> Subject: [] REv 9:17> > > > Thanks for the previous responses, but would now like to get the take on> > the participle ECHONTAS in Rev. 9:17. The near antecedent is the> > participle KATHEMENOUS (the ones sitting), but the term HIPPOUS is also> > masculine, and seems to be the thrust of what John is describing.> >> > Can one make a definitive case one way or the other?> >> > Ron Snider> >> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >
[] REv 9:17[] REv 9:17
[] REv 9:17 Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Fri Dec 26 15:38:56 EST 2003
[] REv 9:17 [] REv 9:17 As far as I can see “lower” animals like locusts and crustacea have a QWRAXin Greek. But in my dictionaries I can not find the word for the armour of ahorse – until now.Dr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: “mrt” <mrt at hisurfer.net>Aan: “b-Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: vrijdag 26 december 2003 17:29Onderwerp: Re: [] REv 9:17> Up a ways in the same chapter we have QWRAX (9:9) again, but strangely> enough it is the AKRIDWN (locusts 9:7) that are wearing them.> > This is not to negate anything previously said… just FYI.> > Michael Tarver> Oregon> <‘>< laus Deo> —– Original Message —–> From: “Ron Snider” <ronpt at comcast.net>> To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 7:02 AM> Subject: [] REv 9:17> > > > Thanks for the previous responses, but would now like to get the take on> > the participle ECHONTAS in Rev. 9:17. The near antecedent is the> > participle KATHEMENOUS (the ones sitting), but the term HIPPOUS is also> > masculine, and seems to be the thrust of what John is describing.> >> > Can one make a definitive case one way or the other?> >> > Ron Snider> >> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >
[] REv 9:17[] REv 9:17
[] Rev 9:17 revelation info at revelationjesuschrist.com
Wed Dec 31 17:51:23 EST 2003
[] remove me from mailing list [] Rev 9:17 Ron Snider wrote:but would now like to get the take on the participle ECHONTAS in Rev. 9:17.The near antecedent is theparticiple KATHEMENOUS (the ones sitting), but the term HIPPOUS is alsomasculine, and seems to be the thrust of what John is describing.Polycarp66 wrote: Secondly: I am not sure, but I think a horse cannot wear aQWRAX.Here is my take on what is meant by “having thoraxes” …The Greek word tho’-rax, meaning “the area from the neck down to the ribcage” describes the hard armored exoskeleton middle segment of an insectlike a Locust. The Romans wore a “muscled cuirass” made of molded leather ora Lorica Segmentata made of plate armor to protect their chest area which inGreek was called a “thorax statios.” This is why the word thorax istranslated in English Bibles as “Breastplates.” The word thoraxes appearsonly in rev 9:09 and 9:17. Rev 9:09 describes the locusts as having”thoraxes like iron thoraxes (meaning breastplates)” The author is using ametaphor that compares the exoskeleton of a locust to the armor men put onin war. The thoraxes in Rev 9:17 describe the armor worn by horses AND theirriders. The armor on the horses would be on their heads with screens toprotect their eyes. The shape of the horse head armor used to protect eyeslooks almost identical to the armor worn by men to protect their chests.Daniel Gleason
[] remove me from mailing list[] Rev 9:17
[] Rev 9:17 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Dec 31 18:01:53 EST 2003
[] Rev 9:17 [] Rev 9:17 In a message dated 12/31/2003 5:51:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, info at revelationjesuschrist.com writes:Polycarp66 wrote: Secondly: I am not sure, but I think a horse cannot wear aQWRAX.This was not my comment.gfsomsel
[] Rev 9:17[] Rev 9:17
[] Rev 9:17 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Dec 31 18:01:53 EST 2003
[] Rev 9:17 [] Rev 9:17 In a message dated 12/31/2003 5:51:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, info at revelationjesuschrist.com writes:Polycarp66 wrote: Secondly: I am not sure, but I think a horse cannot wear aQWRAX.This was not my comment.gfsomsel
[] Rev 9:17[] Rev 9:17
[] Rev 9:17 revelation info at revelationjesuschrist.com
Wed Dec 31 17:51:23 EST 2003
[] remove me from mailing list [] Rev 9:17 Ron Snider wrote:but would now like to get the take on the participle ECHONTAS in Rev. 9:17.The near antecedent is theparticiple KATHEMENOUS (the ones sitting), but the term HIPPOUS is alsomasculine, and seems to be the thrust of what John is describing.Polycarp66 wrote: Secondly: I am not sure, but I think a horse cannot wear aQWRAX.Here is my take on what is meant by “having thoraxes” …The Greek word tho’-rax, meaning “the area from the neck down to the ribcage” describes the hard armored exoskeleton middle segment of an insectlike a Locust. The Romans wore a “muscled cuirass” made of molded leather ora Lorica Segmentata made of plate armor to protect their chest area which inGreek was called a “thorax statios.” This is why the word thorax istranslated in English Bibles as “Breastplates.” The word thoraxes appearsonly in rev 9:09 and 9:17. Rev 9:09 describes the locusts as having”thoraxes like iron thoraxes (meaning breastplates)” The author is using ametaphor that compares the exoskeleton of a locust to the armor men put onin war. The thoraxes in Rev 9:17 describe the armor worn by horses AND theirriders. The armor on the horses would be on their heads with screens toprotect their eyes. The shape of the horse head armor used to protect eyeslooks almost identical to the armor worn by men to protect their chests.Daniel Gleason
[] remove me from mailing list[] Rev 9:17
[] Rev 9:17 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Dec 31 18:05:33 EST 2003
[] Rev 9:17 [] Greek resource website In a message dated 12/31/2003 5:51:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, info at revelationjesuschrist.com writes:Here is my take on what is meant by “having thoraxes” …The Greek word tho’-rax, meaning “the area from the neck down to theribcage” describes the hard armored exoskeleton middle segment of an insectlike a Locust. The Romans wore a “muscled cuirass” made of molded leather ora Lorica Segmentata made of plate armor to protect their chest area which inGreek was called a “thorax statios.” This is why the word thorax istranslated in English Bibles as “Breastplates.” The word thoraxes appearsonly in rev 9:09 and 9:17. Rev 9:09 describes the locusts as having”thoraxes like iron thoraxes (meaning breastplates)” The author is using ametaphor that compares the exoskeleton of a locust to the armor men put onin war. The thoraxes in Rev 9:17 describe the armor worn by horses AND theirriders. The armor on the horses would be on their heads with screens toprotect their eyes. The shape of the horse head armor used to protect eyeslooks almost identical to the armor worn by men to protect their chests.__________The Parthian heavy cavalry also wore a chain mail armor which hung down before the chest area. Their light cavalry did not wear this chain mail.gfsomsel
[] Rev 9:17[] Greek resource website
[] Rev 9:17 mrt mrt at hisurfer.net
Wed Dec 31 22:44:52 EST 2003
[] Rev 9:17 [] Rev 9:17 >Daniel Gleason wrote:>Rev 9:09 describes the locusts as having “thoraxes like iron thoraxes(meaning >breastplates)” The author is using a metaphor that compares theexoskeleton of a locust >to the armor men put on in war.I like what you said here comparing the locusts’ chest area to a THORAX (cf.BDAG)Dr. A. Dirkzwager also mentioned this (12/26/03): “As far as I can see”lower” animals like locusts and crustacea have a QWRAX in Greek.”>The word thoraxes appears only in rev 9:09 and 9:17.It also occurs in the GNT (Eph. 6:14; 1 Thess. 5:8; Rev. 9:9 twice, 17) andOT 1 Sam. 17:5; 1 Ki. 22:34; 2 Chr. 18:33; 26:14; Neh. 4:10; Job 41:5, 18;Isa. 59:17; Jer. 26:4; Ezek. 38:4) with LXX non-canonical (Wis. 5:18; Sir.43:20; 1 Ma. 3:3; 6:2, 43)>The thoraxes in Rev 9:17 describe the armor worn by horses AND theirriders. The >armor on the horses would be on their heads with screens toprotect their eyes. The >shape of the horse head armor used to protect eyeslooks almost identical to the armor >worn by men to protect their chests.Previously I didn’t entertain the idea that both horse AND rider could wearthe QWRAX. I’m glad you said this. So now the possibilities are: (1) onlythe horses are wearing the QWRAX – this would be the case if John wereindeed only focusing on the horses and not the riders. (2) of only theriders – this at first sight seemed natural to associate QWRAX with thebreastplates of men (cf. NASB, NET). (3) both wear the QWRAX- We have seenthrough George Somsel that the horse can also don the breastplate (cf.Polycarp 12/26/03).Having done a word study here, it seems most convincing with John’spersistent OT allusions that Ezek 38:4 seems to be in view. And now boththe Ezek passage with Rev. 9:17 give me the impression that also agrees withyour statement that BOTH are wearing the QWRAX.Michael TarverOregon, USA<‘>< laus Deo
[] Rev 9:17[] Rev 9:17
[] Rev 9:17 mrt mrt at hisurfer.net
Wed Dec 31 22:44:52 EST 2003
[] Rev 9:17 [] Rev 9:17 >Daniel Gleason wrote:>Rev 9:09 describes the locusts as having “thoraxes like iron thoraxes(meaning >breastplates)” The author is using a metaphor that compares theexoskeleton of a locust >to the armor men put on in war.I like what you said here comparing the locusts’ chest area to a THORAX (cf.BDAG)Dr. A. Dirkzwager also mentioned this (12/26/03): “As far as I can see”lower” animals like locusts and crustacea have a QWRAX in Greek.”>The word thoraxes appears only in rev 9:09 and 9:17.It also occurs in the GNT (Eph. 6:14; 1 Thess. 5:8; Rev. 9:9 twice, 17) andOT 1 Sam. 17:5; 1 Ki. 22:34; 2 Chr. 18:33; 26:14; Neh. 4:10; Job 41:5, 18;Isa. 59:17; Jer. 26:4; Ezek. 38:4) with LXX non-canonical (Wis. 5:18; Sir.43:20; 1 Ma. 3:3; 6:2, 43)>The thoraxes in Rev 9:17 describe the armor worn by horses AND theirriders. The >armor on the horses would be on their heads with screens toprotect their eyes. The >shape of the horse head armor used to protect eyeslooks almost identical to the armor >worn by men to protect their chests.Previously I didn’t entertain the idea that both horse AND rider could wearthe QWRAX. I’m glad you said this. So now the possibilities are: (1) onlythe horses are wearing the QWRAX – this would be the case if John wereindeed only focusing on the horses and not the riders. (2) of only theriders – this at first sight seemed natural to associate QWRAX with thebreastplates of men (cf. NASB, NET). (3) both wear the QWRAX- We have seenthrough George Somsel that the horse can also don the breastplate (cf.Polycarp 12/26/03).Having done a word study here, it seems most convincing with John’spersistent OT allusions that Ezek 38:4 seems to be in view. And now boththe Ezek passage with Rev. 9:17 give me the impression that also agrees withyour statement that BOTH are wearing the QWRAX.Michael TarverOregon, USA<‘>< laus Deo
[] Rev 9:17[] Rev 9:17
[] Rev 9:17 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Dec 31 18:05:33 EST 2003
[] Rev 9:17 [] Greek resource website In a message dated 12/31/2003 5:51:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, info at revelationjesuschrist.com writes:Here is my take on what is meant by “having thoraxes” …The Greek word tho’-rax, meaning “the area from the neck down to theribcage” describes the hard armored exoskeleton middle segment of an insectlike a Locust. The Romans wore a “muscled cuirass” made of molded leather ora Lorica Segmentata made of plate armor to protect their chest area which inGreek was called a “thorax statios.” This is why the word thorax istranslated in English Bibles as “Breastplates.” The word thoraxes appearsonly in rev 9:09 and 9:17. Rev 9:09 describes the locusts as having”thoraxes like iron thoraxes (meaning breastplates)” The author is using ametaphor that compares the exoskeleton of a locust to the armor men put onin war. The thoraxes in Rev 9:17 describe the armor worn by horses AND theirriders. The armor on the horses would be on their heads with screens toprotect their eyes. The shape of the horse head armor used to protect eyeslooks almost identical to the armor worn by men to protect their chests.__________The Parthian heavy cavalry also wore a chain mail armor which hung down before the chest area. Their light cavalry did not wear this chain mail.gfsomsel
[] Rev 9:17[] Greek resource website
[] Standing in the sun?? (Rev. 19:17) Webb webb at selftest.net
Fri Nov 24 19:30:43 EST 2006
[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what?? [] Greek New Testament KAI EIDON hENA AGGELOS ESTWTA EN TWi hHLIWi Anybody have any idea what we’re supposed to picture when we hear this? Isthe angel standing in front of the sun, but the disk of the sun is beingpictured as large enough that his height is less than its diameter? Sometranslations have “on the sun”, which would work. I don’t like “in the sun”because in English, “standing in the sun” pretty much means “standing in thesunlight”. It doesn’t mean that, does it? Here’s the only other occurrenceof EN TWi hHLIWi that I could find in the Greek biblical corpus: KAI EIS TA PERATA THS OIKOUMENHS TA hRHMATA AUTWN EN TWi hHLIWi EQETO TOSKHNWMA AUTOU (Ps. 18:5 LXX) Webb Mealy
[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??[] Greek New Testament
How is this possible? Ricky Grimsley
Does the esc make it clear? Revelation 9:16-17 ESV
[16] The number of mounted troops was twice ten thousand times ten thousand; I heard their number. [17] And this is how I saw the horses in my vision and those who rode them: they wore breastplates the color of fire and of sapphire and of sulfur, and the heads of the horses were like lions’ heads, and fire and smoke and sulfur came out of their mouths.
I guess I am not following on this one Neither I am sure what Standing on the Sun means in the verse (for right now)
Me neither. There was too much Greek. Lol
True that – does it mean on top of the sun?
Is it related to clothed with the moon?
Are these literal clothing and standing?
The positioning of the description of the riders and the fact that the breastplates are more appropriate to the riders than the horses is, no doubt, the reason that the translators have interpreted EXONTAS as describing the riders. There are differences in the punctuation which IMP matters little
How is this possible? Ricky Grimsley
Does the esc make it clear? Revelation 9:16-17 ESV
[16] The number of mounted troops was twice ten thousand times ten thousand; I heard their number. [17] And this is how I saw the horses in my vision and those who rode them: they wore breastplates the color of fire and of sapphire and of sulfur, and the heads of the horses were like lions’ heads, and fire and smoke and sulfur came out of their mouths.
I guess I am not following on this one Neither I am sure what Standing on the Sun means in the verse (for right now)
Me neither. There was too much Greek. Lol
True that – does it mean on top of the sun?
Is it related to clothed with the moon?
Are these literal clothing and standing?
The positioning of the description of the riders and the fact that the breastplates are more appropriate to the riders than the horses is, no doubt, the reason that the translators have interpreted EXONTAS as describing the riders. There are differences in the punctuation which IMP matters little