[] Rev 4:3, Syntax Donald COBB docobb at orange.fr
Tue Mar 24 11:54:24 EDT 2009
[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 [] Rev 4:3, Syntax Rev 4:3 reads:KAI hO KAQHMENOS hOMOIOS hORASEI LIQWi IASPIDI KAI SARDIWi. Taking hORASEI as a dative of respect, the first part can be Englished: “And he who was seated was similar, as to his appearence…”My question is: IASPIDI KAI SARDIWi being datives, they shouldn’t be considered as epexegetical (which would imply genitives, i.e., LIQWi IASPIDOS KAI SARDIOU). BDAG does not list them has adjectives (“jasper stones”). Should they be taken, then, as appositional? In that case, the sentence could be Englished in the following way:”And he who was seated was similar, as to his appearence, to a stone, [i.e.] to Jasper and cornelian”Your thoughts?Donald Cobb
[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3[] Rev 4:3, Syntax
[] Rev 4:3, Syntax Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Mar 24 17:12:56 EDT 2009
[] Rev 4:3, Syntax [] Voice matters again On Mar 24, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Donald COBB wrote:> Rev 4:3 reads:> > KAI hO KAQHMENOS hOMOIOS hORASEI LIQWi IASPIDI KAI SARDIWi.> > Taking hORASEI as a dative of respect, the first part can be > Englished: “And he who was seated was similar, as to his > appearence…”> > My question is: IASPIDI KAI SARDIWi being datives, they shouldn’t be > considered as epexegetical (which would imply genitives, i.e., LIQWi > IASPIDOS KAI SARDIOU). BDAG does not list them has adjectives > (“jasper stones”). Should they be taken, then, as appositional? In > that case, the sentence could be Englished in the following way:> > “And he who was seated was similar, as to his appearence, to a > stone, [i.e.] to Jasper and cornelian”Yes, I think they mu;st be understood as appositional; hOMOIOS takes a dative — LIQWi “gemstone”; IASPIDI KAI SARDIWi spell out what kind of gemstone the one seataed on the throne is similar to.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Rev 4:3, Syntax[] Voice matters again
Have you considered Rev 4 in your studies Link Hudson ?
Troy Day Just to clarify, you do not think this comment is relevant to our discussion of the timing of the rapture do you?
My question is about IASPIDI KAI SARDIWi being datives, they shouldn’t be considered as epexegetical (which would imply genitives, i.e., LIQWi IASPIDOS KAI SARDIOU). BDAG does not list them has adjectives (“jasper stones”). Should they be taken, then, as appositional? In that case, the sentence could be Englished in the following way:”And he who was seated was similar, as to his appearence, to a stone, [i.e.] to Jasper and cornelian” Your thoughts?
Link Hudson did you post a response here? I cannot see it yet Is Rev 4 not worth our eschatological attention today?
I did not see the connection between the particular grammatical issue the thread opened up with and our eschatalogical discussion.
Sorry, I cant really post during church times
Troy Day No pressure to post anything at any particular time.
It’s hard to text from the pulpit Dont try it
Link Hudson as I asked in the initial question of OP the Greek seem to clarify how the 24 elders are related to the Gates of the Heavenly City, which is also called by Ricky Grimsley The Bride of Christ
There is no doubt of course that the NT Church is the Bride of Christ and is in heaven at that time But what are those elders doing there in heaven Revelation ch 4? What possible purpose could they serve there after the rapture?
Troy Day there is no rapture of the church mentioned before the rapture of thechurch. Another example of a pretribber assuming a passage teaches pretrib.
I guess this is 4-5th time me asking and you not answering the same question so once again Who are these elders and what are they doing already in heaven by Revelation ch 4? What possible purpose could they serve there after the rapture?
Troy Day Why don’t you tell me what color were Jesus eye’s, and what He ate for breakfast three days after His 40 day fast ended, first?
There are some things that are not in the Bible. It seems to me that you have some speculative theory about who the 24 elders are, and you want to base some sort of doctrine on that, instead of looking at the plain teachings that are actually in scripture, like the fact that the man of sin is destroyed by the brightness of the Lord’s parousia, and the rapture occurs at the parousia, and Matthew 24 shows the coming of the Lord occuring after the tribulation of those days.
My answer is of course I do not know who the elders are. And I would venture to guess you do not either. Has the Lord taken you up into heaven and let you ask the 24 elders their names?
The last question makes no sense. The church hasn’t been raptured yet in Revelation 4. The first resurrection occurs at the end of the book, and the dead in Christ rise first according to Paul.
How is this relavent to the OP, btw?
My question was about IASPIDI KAI SARDIWi being datives, they shouldn’t be considered as epexegetical (which would imply genitives, i.e., LIQWi IASPIDOS KAI SARDIOU). BDAG does not list them has adjectives (“jasper stones”). Should they be taken, then, as appositional? In that case, the sentence could be Englished in the following way:”And he who was seated was similar, as to his appearence, to a stone, [i.e.] to Jasper and cornelian” Your thoughts?
Troy Day My thoughts are ‘How is this relavent to the questions you ask about the rapture and the elders in this thread?” other than the fact that John saw this in the same visionary/supernatural experience.
I am asking a very simple question about the elders that you seem to have a hard time fitting into your out-of-the-box eschatology. My question was about IASPIDI KAI SARDIWi being datives, they shouldn’t be considered as epexegetical (which would imply genitives, i.e., LIQWi IASPIDOS KAI SARDIOU). BDAG does not list them has adjectives (“jasper stones”). Should they be taken, then, as appositional? In that case, the sentence could be Englished in the following way:”And he who was seated was similar, as to his appearence, to a stone, [i.e.] to Jasper and cornelian” Your thoughts?
Troy Day I only responded to the tread because you tagged me. I am not very interested in the question because I do not see how it contributes to the overall meaning of the passage. It does not seem to be a theological question, but more of a question for Greek grammarians. Maybe you could discuss with your former Greek professors.
Gary Micheal Epping the initial question and followup discussion here Partial answer in the discussion of their body description
BIBLE STUDY Rev 3 RichardAnna Boyce Isara Mo