Revelation 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 2 22:24:15 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 7. 4 KAI HKOUSA TON ARIQMON TWN ESFRAGISMENWN, hEKATON TESSERAKONTA TESSARES XILIADES, ESFRAGISMENOI EK PASHS FULHS hUIWN ISRAHL5 EK FULHS IOUDA DWDEKA XILIADES ESFRAGISMENOI, EK FULHS hROUBHN DWDEKA XILIADES, EK FULHS GAD DWDEKA XILIADES …The text states that the number is EK PASHS FULHS which would indicate every tribe is to be included so that the number is a total and would include the separate number from each individual tribe. Read the entire passage and add up the numbers, and you will arrive at 144,000 for the total of the 12 tribes or IOW “all Israel.” georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Andrew Witelde <adslkq7b at tpg.com.au>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 10:14:14 PMSubject: [] Rev 7:4Rev 7:4 says (in part): EK PASHS FULHS hUIWN ISRAHLShould this be translated “of all the tribes of the sons of Israel” (implying that the 144,000 are ALL of Israel) or “out of every tribe of the sons of Israel” (implying that they are but a segment of the whole of Israel). Or should it be translated another way?Basically I want to know if this scripture is definitely saying the 144,000 are ALL of Israel or a PART of Israel, or it could go both ways (as far as grammar is concerned).Regards.— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ ____________________________________________________________________________________Don’t pick lemons.See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 Andrew Witelde adslkq7b at tpg.com.au
Mon Apr 2 22:14:14 EDT 2007

 

[] GRAFW of remote causation [] Rev 7:4 Rev 7:4 says (in part): EK PASHS FULHS hUIWN ISRAHLShould this be translated “of all the tribes of the sons of Israel” (implying that the 144,000 are ALL of Israel) or “out of every tribe of the sons of Israel” (implying that they are but a segment of the whole of Israel). Or should it be translated another way?Basically I want to know if this scripture is definitely saying the 144,000 are ALL of Israel or a PART of Israel, or it could go both ways (as far as grammar is concerned).Regards.

 

[] GRAFW of remote causation[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Mon Apr 2 23:04:36 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 Andrew Witelde wrote:> Rev 7:4 says (in part): > > EK PASHS FULHS hUIWN ISRAHL> > Should this be translated “of all the tribes of the sons of Israel” (implying that the 144,000 are ALL > of Israel) or “out of every tribe of the sons of Israel” (implying that they are but a segment of the > whole of Israel). Or should it be translated another way?> > Basically I want to know if this scripture is definitely saying the 144,000 are ALL of Israel or a PART of > Israel, or it could go both ways (as far as grammar is concerned).> > HH: I’ve never gotten the impression that the 144,000 were the sum of all Israelites. They are selected groups from all the tribes of Israel. There are more Israelites than the 144,000. You raise an interesting question, because it says that these are the number of the ones sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel, yet at least one tribe is not mentioned, Dan. So unless Dan is viewed as swallowed up by another tribe, the text would seem to mean that out of every tribe, this is the number of those sealed, even if one tribe is not represented. This is the total number of those selected from every tribe.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 Andrew Witelde adslkq7b at tpg.com.au
Mon Apr 2 23:12:15 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 Does EK imply “all of” or “part of” or neither (or both)?

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 2 23:17:55 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 EK can be partitive. Note the usage in Mt 26.73META MIKRON DE PROSELQONTES hOI ESTWTES EIPON TWi PETRWi, “ALHQWS KAI SU EC AUTWN EI, KAI GAR hH LALIA SOU DHLON SE POIEI. If you are trying to use that to make the number greater than 144,000, however, you are going against the clear statement of the passage. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Andrew Witelde <adslkq7b at tpg.com.au>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 11:12:15 PMSubject: Re: [] Rev 7:4Does EK imply “all of” or “part of” or neither (or both)?— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ ____________________________________________________________________________________Now that’s room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotelsin 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 Andrew Witelde adslkq7b at tpg.com.au
Mon Apr 2 23:24:11 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 No, no. I’m trying to discern whether the 144,000 are “taken out of Israel, thus leaving others behind in Israel” or the 144,000 “are Israel, thus Israel as a whole numbers 144,000”.Quoting George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>:> EK can be partitive. Note the usage in Mt 26.73> > META MIKRON DE PROSELQONTES hOI ESTWTES EIPON TWi PETRWi, “ALHQWS KAI> SU EC AUTWN EI, KAI GAR hH LALIA SOU DHLON SE POIEI. > > If you are trying to use that to make the number greater than> 144,000, however, you are going against the clear statement of the> passage.> > george> gfsomsel> _________> > > > —– Original Message —-> From: Andrew Witelde <adslkq7b at tpg.com.au>> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 11:12:15 PM> Subject: Re: [] Rev 7:4> > > Does EK imply “all of” or “part of” or neither (or both)?> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________> Now that’s room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels> in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.> http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 2 23:38:47 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 I think the answer to your dilemma is to be found in the preceding verseLEGWN, MH ADIKHSHTE THN GHN MHTE THN QALASSAN MHTE TA DENTRA, AXRI SFRAGISWMEN TOUS DOULOUS TOU QEOU hHMWN EPI TWN METWPWN AUTWNIt is the “servants of God” which are sealed. Does this mean all Israel? Maybe, maybe not. It is nevertheless the SERVANTS OF GOD which are sealed. It has already been noted that the tribe of Dan is not mentioned, but that is not particularly surprising and can be explained on the basis of certain non-canonical writings. In any event, there is a fluidity to the precise tribes included in Israel though the number is always 12. You might read Martin Noth’s work _Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels_ or his _The History of Israel_ regarding this. There are, of course, problems with this view. There is a discussion of Noth and the issues related to the amphyctyony under “Amphyctyony” in the _Anchor Bible Dictionary_ which you might read for a short overview. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Andrew Witelde <adslkq7b at tpg.com.au>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 11:24:11 PMSubject: Re: [] Rev 7:4No, no. I’m trying to discern whether the 144,000 are “taken out of Israel, thus leaving others behind in Israel” or the 144,000 “are Israel, thus Israel as a whole numbers 144,000”.Quoting George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>:> EK can be partitive. Note the usage in Mt 26.73> > META MIKRON DE PROSELQONTES hOI ESTWTES EIPON TWi PETRWi, “ALHQWS KAI> SU EC AUTWN EI, KAI GAR hH LALIA SOU DHLON SE POIEI. > > If you are trying to use that to make the number greater than> 144,000, however, you are going against the clear statement of the> passage.> > george> gfsomsel> _________> > > > —– Original Message —-> From: Andrew Witelde <adslkq7b at tpg.com.au>> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 11:12:15 PM> Subject: Re: [] Rev 7:4> > > Does EK imply “all of” or “part of” or neither (or both)?> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________> Now that’s room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels> in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.> http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 ____________________________________________________________________________________We won’t tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV’s Guilty Pleasures list.http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 Juan Stam juanstam at ice.co.cr
Mon Apr 2 23:50:53 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 The very important tribe of Ephrain is also omitted, though curiously hisfather Joseph (never a tribe) is included. As to Dan, although Testament ofDan speaks of the apostasy of Dan, it also tells of their repentance andrestoration. In the list of tribal territories in Ezek 48 (supposedlyeschatological in the thought of Ezekiel), the tribe of Dan is in firstplace.Juan Stam, Costa Rica—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of George F SomselSent: Lunes, 02 de Abril de 2007 09:39 p.m.To: Andrew Witelde; Subject: Re: [] Rev 7:4I think the answer to your dilemma is to be found in the preceding verseLEGWN, MH ADIKHSHTE THN GHN MHTE THN QALASSAN MHTE TA DENTRA, AXRISFRAGISWMEN TOUS DOULOUS TOU QEOU hHMWN EPI TWN METWPWN AUTWNIt is the “servants of God” which are sealed. Does this mean all Israel?Maybe, maybe not. It is nevertheless the SERVANTS OF GOD which are sealed.It has already been noted that the tribe of Dan is not mentioned, but thatis not particularly surprising and can be explained on the basis of certainnon-canonical writings. In any event, there is a fluidity to the precisetribes included in Israel though the number is always 12. You might readMartin Noth’s work _Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels_ or his _The Historyof Israel_ regarding this. There are, of course, problems with this view.There is a discussion of Noth and the issues related to the amphyctyonyunder “Amphyctyony” in the _Anchor Bible Dictionary_ which you might readfor a short overview. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Andrew Witelde <adslkq7b at tpg.com.au>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 11:24:11 PMSubject: Re: [] Rev 7:4No, no. I’m trying to discern whether the 144,000 are “taken out of Israel,thus leaving others behind in Israel” or the 144,000 “are Israel, thus Israel as a whole numbers144,000”.Quoting George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>:> EK can be partitive. Note the usage in Mt 26.73> > META MIKRON DE PROSELQONTES hOI ESTWTES EIPON TWi PETRWi, “ALHQWS KAI> SU EC AUTWN EI, KAI GAR hH LALIA SOU DHLON SE POIEI. > > If you are trying to use that to make the number greater than> 144,000, however, you are going against the clear statement of the> passage.> > george> gfsomsel> _________> > > > —– Original Message —-> From: Andrew Witelde <adslkq7b at tpg.com.au>> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 11:12:15 PM> Subject: Re: [] Rev 7:4> > > Does EK imply “all of” or “part of” or neither (or both)?> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________> Now that’s room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels> in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.> http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 ____________________________________________________________________________________We won’t tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV’s Guilty Pleasures list.http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 Andrew Witelde adslkq7b at tpg.com.au
Mon Apr 2 23:52:41 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] PASCA Assuming that “Israel” was figurative, that is not literally Israel, would the 144,000 be all of this figurative Israel, or a portion of it (based on grammar)?> I think the answer to your dilemma is to be found in the preceding> verse> > LEGWN, MH ADIKHSHTE THN GHN MHTE THN QALASSAN MHTE TA DENTRA, AXRI> SFRAGISWMEN TOUS DOULOUS TOU QEOU hHMWN EPI TWN METWPWN AUTWN> > It is the “servants of God” which are sealed. Does this mean all> Israel? Maybe, maybe not. It is nevertheless the SERVANTS OF GOD> which are sealed. It has already been noted that the tribe of Dan is> not mentioned, but that is not particularly surprising and can be> explained on the basis of certain non-canonical writings. In any> event, there is a fluidity to the precise tribes included in Israel> though the number is always 12. You might read Martin Noth’s work> _Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels_ or his _The History of Israel_> regarding this. There are, of course, problems with this view. > There is a discussion of Noth and the issues related to the> amphyctyony under “Amphyctyony” in the _Anchor Bible Dictionary_> which you might read for a short overview.> > george> gfsomsel> _________> > > > —– Original Message —-> From: Andrew Witelde <adslkq7b at tpg.com.au>> To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; > < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 11:24:11 PM> Subject: Re: [] Rev 7:4> > > No, no. I’m trying to discern whether the 144,000 are “taken out of> Israel, thus leaving others > behind in Israel” or the 144,000 “are Israel, thus Israel as a whole> numbers 144,000″.> > Quoting George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>:> > > EK can be partitive. Note the usage in Mt 26.73> > > > META MIKRON DE PROSELQONTES hOI ESTWTES EIPON TWi PETRWi, “ALHQWS> KAI> > SU EC AUTWN EI, KAI GAR hH LALIA SOU DHLON SE POIEI. > > > > If you are trying to use that to make the number greater than> > 144,000, however, you are going against the clear statement of the> > passage.> > > > george> > gfsomsel> > _________> > > > > > > > —– Original Message —-> > From: Andrew Witelde <adslkq7b at tpg.com.au>> > To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> > Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 11:12:15 PM> > Subject: Re: [] Rev 7:4> > > > > > Does EK imply “all of” or “part of” or neither (or both)?> > —> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________> ___> > Now that’s room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels> > in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.> > http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097> > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________> We won’t tell. Get more on shows you hate to love > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV’s Guilty Pleasures list.> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

 

[] Rev 7:4[] PASCA

[] Rev 7:4 goranson at duke.edu goranson at duke.edu
Tue Apr 3 07:13:02 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 Quoting Juan Stam <juanstam at ice.co.cr>:> > The very important tribe of Ephrain is also omitted, though curiously his> father Joseph (never a tribe) is included. As to Dan, although Testament of> Dan speaks of the apostasy of Dan, it also tells of their repentance and> restoration. In the list of tribal territories in Ezek 48 (supposedly> eschatological in the thought of Ezekiel), the tribe of Dan is in first> place.In case it’s of interest, in”The Exclusion of Ephraim in Rev. 7:4-8 and Essene Polemic against Pharisees.”Dead Sea Discoveries 2/1 (1995) 80-85I offer an explanation for the choice of the tribe names in this list.Stephen Goransonhttp://www.duke.edu/~goranson

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Apr 3 09:00:36 EDT 2007

 

[] Adviso Re: Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 Juan Stam wrote:> > The very important tribe of Ephrain is also omitted, though curiously his> father Joseph (never a tribe) is included. As to Dan, although Testament of> Dan speaks of the apostasy of Dan, it also tells of their repentance and> restoration. In the list of tribal territories in Ezek 48 (supposedly> eschatological in the thought of Ezekiel), the tribe of Dan is in first> place.> HH: The name of Joseph is used as a tribal name, sometimes for Ephraim and sometimes for the northern tribes, since Ephraim was the most prominent of those tribes:Psa. 77:15 With your mighty arm you redeemed your people, the descendants of Jacob and Joseph. SelahPsa. 78:67 Then he rejected the tents of Joseph, he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim;Psa. 80:1 ¶ Hear us, O Shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock; you who sit enthroned between the cherubim, shine forthPsa. 81:5 He established it as a statute for Joseph when he went out against Egypt, where we heard a language we did not understand.Psa. 105:17 and he sent a man before them — Joseph, sold as a slave.Ezek. 37:16 “Son of man, take a stick of wood and write on it, ‘Belonging to Judah and the Israelites associated with him.’ Then take another stick of wood, and write on it, ‘Ephraim’s stick, belonging to Joseph and all the house of Israel associated with him.’Ezek. 37:19 say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph — which is in Ephraim’s hand — and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah’s stick, making them a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.’Ezek. 47:13 ¶ This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “These are the boundaries by which you are to divide the land for an inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel, with two portions for Joseph.Ezek. 48:32 ¶ “On the east side, which is 4,500 cubits long, will be three gates: the gate of Joseph, the gate of Benjamin and the gate of Dan.Amos 5:6 Seek the LORD and live, or he will sweep through the house of Joseph like a fire; it will devour, and Bethel will have no one to quench it.Amos 5:15 Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.Amos 6:6 You drink wine by the bowlful and use the finest lotions, but you do not grieve over the ruin of Joseph.Obad. 1:18 The house of Jacob will be a fire and the house of Joseph a flame; the house of Esau will be stubble, and they will set it on fire and consume it. There will be no survivors from the house of Esau.” The LORD has spoken.Zech. 10:6 “I will strengthen the house of Judah and save the house of Joseph. I will restore them because I have compassion on them. They will be as though I had not rejected them, for I am the LORD their God and I will answer them.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Adviso Re: Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Apr 3 09:12:24 EDT 2007

 

[] Thread closed: Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 In that list of verses I just gave, I forgot to edit out a couple that don’t or probably don’t apply to Joseph as a tribal name:Psa. 81:5 He established it as a statute for Joseph when he went outagainst Egypt, where we heard a language we did not understand.Psa. 105:17 and he sent a man before them — Joseph, sold as a slave.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Thread closed: Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 Juan Stam juanstam at ice.co.cr
Tue Apr 3 09:30:54 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Adviso Re: Rev 7:4 Many thanks, Stephen Goranson!For those of us who don’t have access to this source, could we have a briefsummary of the reasons for the exclusion of Dan and Ephraim and theinclusion of Joseph?Juan Stam, Costa Rica—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of goranson at duke.eduSent: Martes, 03 de Abril de 2007 05:13 a.m.To: ”Subject: Re: [] Rev 7:4Quoting Juan Stam <juanstam at ice.co.cr>:> > The very important tribe of Ephrain is also omitted, though curiously his> father Joseph (never a tribe) is included. As to Dan, although Testamentof> Dan speaks of the apostasy of Dan, it also tells of their repentance and> restoration. In the list of tribal territories in Ezek 48 (supposedly> eschatological in the thought of Ezekiel), the tribe of Dan is in first> place.In case it’s of interest, in”The Exclusion of Ephraim in Rev. 7:4-8 and Essene Polemic againstPharisees.”Dead Sea Discoveries 2/1 (1995) 80-85I offer an explanation for the choice of the tribe names in this list.Stephen Goransonhttp://www.duke.edu/~goranson— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Adviso Re: Rev 7:4

[] Adviso Re: Rev 7:4 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Apr 3 09:39:56 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 This discussion seems to have moved well beyond the textual problemoriginally associated with the Greek text of Rev 7:4. Any further discussionreally should stay within the area of that textual problem. is notthe appropriate forum for a discussion of the interpretation of Revelation.Carl W. Conrad, Co-Chair, Department of Classics, Washington University (ret)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/ On Tuesday, April 03, 2007, at 09:31AM, “Juan Stam” <juanstam at ice.co.cr> wrote:> >Many thanks, Stephen Goranson!> >For those of us who don’t have access to this source, could we have a brief>summary of the reasons for the exclusion of Dan and Ephraim and the>inclusion of Joseph?> >Juan Stam, Costa Rica> >—–Original Message—–>From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org>[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of goranson at duke.edu>Sent: Martes, 03 de Abril de 2007 05:13 a.m.>To: ”>Subject: Re: [] Rev 7:4> >Quoting Juan Stam <juanstam at ice.co.cr>:> >> >> The very important tribe of Ephrain is also omitted, though curiously his>> father Joseph (never a tribe) is included. As to Dan, although Testament>of>> Dan speaks of the apostasy of Dan, it also tells of their repentance and>> restoration. In the list of tribal territories in Ezek 48 (supposedly>> eschatological in the thought of Ezekiel), the tribe of Dan is in first>> place.> >In case it’s of interest, in>“The Exclusion of Ephraim in Rev. 7:4-8 and Essene Polemic against>Pharisees.”>Dead Sea Discoveries 2/1 (1995) 80-85>I offer an explanation for the choice of the tribe names in this list.> >Stephen Goranson>http://www.duke.edu/~goranson> >—> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > >—> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 Juan Stam juanstam at ice.co.cr
Tue Apr 3 09:40:54 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 Does “Joseph” appear in lists of the tribes, along with Manassah? The listin Rev 7 is certainly very irregularJuan Stam, Costa Rica—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold HolmyardSent: Martes, 03 de Abril de 2007 07:01 a.m.To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Rev 7:4Juan Stam wrote:> > The very important tribe of Ephrain is also omitted, though curiously his> father Joseph (never a tribe) is included. As to Dan, although Testamentof> Dan speaks of the apostasy of Dan, it also tells of their repentance and> restoration. In the list of tribal territories in Ezek 48 (supposedly> eschatological in the thought of Ezekiel), the tribe of Dan is in first> place.> HH: The name of Joseph is used as a tribal name, sometimes for Ephraim and sometimes for the northern tribes, since Ephraim was the most prominent of those tribes:Psa. 77:15 With your mighty arm you redeemed your people, the descendants of Jacob and Joseph. SelahPsa. 78:67 Then he rejected the tents of Joseph, he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim;Psa. 80:1 ¶ Hear us, O Shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock; you who sit enthroned between the cherubim, shine forthPsa. 81:5 He established it as a statute for Joseph when he went out against Egypt, where we heard a language we did not understand.Psa. 105:17 and he sent a man before them — Joseph, sold as a slave.Ezek. 37:16 “Son of man, take a stick of wood and write on it, ‘Belonging to Judah and the Israelites associated with him.’ Then take another stick of wood, and write on it, ‘Ephraim’s stick, belonging to Joseph and all the house of Israel associated with him.’Ezek. 37:19 say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph — which is in Ephraim’s hand — and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah’s stick, making them a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.’Ezek. 47:13 ¶ This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “These are the boundaries by which you are to divide the land for an inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel, with two portions for Joseph.Ezek. 48:32 ¶ “On the east side, which is 4,500 cubits long, will be three gates: the gate of Joseph, the gate of Benjamin and the gate of Dan.Amos 5:6 Seek the LORD and live, or he will sweep through the house of Joseph like a fire; it will devour, and Bethel will have no one to quench it.Amos 5:15 Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.Amos 6:6 You drink wine by the bowlful and use the finest lotions, but you do not grieve over the ruin of Joseph.Obad. 1:18 The house of Jacob will be a fire and the house of Joseph a flame; the house of Esau will be stubble, and they will set it on fire and consume it. There will be no survivors from the house of Esau.” The LORD has spoken.Zech. 10:6 “I will strengthen the house of Judah and save the house of Joseph. I will restore them because I have compassion on them. They will be as though I had not rejected them, for I am the LORD their God and I will answer them.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Apr 3 10:19:30 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Thread closed: Rev 7:4 Juan Stam wrote:> Does “Joseph” appear in lists of the tribes, along with Manassah? The list> in Rev 7 is certainly very irregular> HH: Joseph does not regularly do so, but it is possible:Ezek. 48:32 ¶ “On the east side, which is 4,500 cubits long, will be three gates: the gate of Joseph, the gate of Benjamin and the gate of Dan.HH: You have to read the whole chapter to see this, but 12 tribal names are given at first, with Ephraim mentioned (the Levites are excluded). In Exek 48:32 the name ‘Joseph” replaces that of “Ephraim” in the tribal listing.This happens earlier in the book of Ezekiel and so is not difficult for the reader to understand.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Thread closed: Rev 7:4

[] Thread closed: Rev 7:4 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Apr 3 10:35:40 EDT 2007

 

[] Rev 7:4 [] Rev 7:4 I asked that any further discussion in this thread be limitedto discussion of the Greek text of Rev 7:4. Since the admonitionhas been ignored, the thread is now closed.Carl W. Conrad, Co-Chair, On Tuesday, April 03, 2007, at 10:20AM, “Harold Holmyard” <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net> wrote:>Juan Stam wrote:>> Does “Joseph” appear in lists of the tribes, along with Manassah? The list>> in Rev 7 is certainly very irregular>> > >HH: Joseph does not regularly do so, but it is possible:> >Ezek. 48:32 ¶ ?On the east side, which is 4,500 cubits long, will be >three gates: the gate of Joseph, the gate of Benjamin and the gate of Dan.> >HH: You have to read the whole chapter to see this, but 12 tribal names are given at first, with Ephraim mentioned (the Levites are excluded). In Exek 48:32 the name ‘Joseph” replaces that of “Ephraim” in the tribal listing.This happens earlier in the book of Ezekiel and so is not difficult for the reader to understand.> >Yours,>Harold Holmyard > > > > >—> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >

 

[] Rev 7:4[] Rev 7:4

[] Rev 7:4 Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com
Tue Apr 3 14:17:27 EDT 2007

 

[] PASCA [] ARISTEAS 11, SYRIAKH, and language clarity in Greek In a message dated 4/2/2007 10:05:26 PM Central Daylight Time, hholmyard3 at earthlink.net writes:> HH: I’ve never gotten the impression that the 144,000 were the sum of > all Israelites. They are selected groups from all the tribes of Israel. > There are more Israelites than the 144,000. You raise an interesting > question, because it says that these are the number of the ones sealed > out of every tribe of the sons of Israel, yet at least one tribe is not > mentioned, Dan. So unless Dan is viewed as swallowed up by another > tribe, the text would seem to mean that out of every tribe, this is the > number of those sealed, even if one tribe is not represented. This is > the total number of those selected from every tribe.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> Two tribes are not sealed in this passage, Dan and Ephraim, because both introduced idols into the family of Israel.Doug.Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.Tejas ValleySan Antonio, Texas </HTML>

 

[] PASCA[] ARISTEAS 11, SYRIAKH, and language clarity in Greek

[] Revelation 7:4 and Israel Edgar Foster edgarfoster2003 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 12 12:42:14 EDT 2008

 

[] INA GINWSKOMEN – 1Jn 5:20 [] DUNAMIS…ESTIN in Rom. 1:16 Greetings,The text reads (Revelation 7:4): KAI HKOUSA TON ARIQMON TWN ESFRAGISMENWN hEKATON TESSARAKONTA TESSARES XILIADES ESFRAGISMENOI EK PASHS FULHS hUIWN ISRAHL.Would you consider EK PASHS FULHS hUIWN ISRAHL an example of a partitive or wholative genitive such that John’s thought is that the 144,000 (a part) are taken out of Israel (the whole) without exhaustively accounting for the entire class or nation Israel. Another way to word what I’m asking is, does the Greek here imply that “Israel” in this passage is not restricted to the 144,000 sealed ones?Thanks,Edgar FosterLenoir-Rhyne College

 

[] INA GINWSKOMEN – 1Jn 5:20[] DUNAMIS…ESTIN in Rom. 1:16

[] Revelation 7:4 and Israel George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 12 13:37:49 EDT 2008

 

[] DUNAMIS…ESTIN in Rom. 1:16 [] DUNAMIS…ESTIN in Rom. 1:16 BDAG takes it as a partitive usage ④marker used in periphrasis,from, ofⓐfor the partitive gen.(B-D-F§164, 1and 2; 169; Rob.599; 1379).α.after words denoting number εἷς, μία, ἕν [hEIS, MIA hEN] (Hdt.2, 46, 2 ἐκ τούτων εἷς [EK TOUTWN hEIS]; POxy117, 14ff [II/III a.d.] δύο …ἐξ ὧν …ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν [hEIS EC AUTWN]; Tob 12:15BA; Sir 32:1; Jos., Bell. 7, 47; JosAs20:2 ἐκ τῶν παρθένων μία [EK TWN PARQENWN MIA] Just., D. 126, 4) Mt 10:29; 18:12; 22:35; 27:48; Mk 9:17al.; εἷς τις [hEIS TIS] J 11:49; δύο [DUO] Mk 16:12; Lk 24:13; J 1:35; 21:2.πέντε [PENTE] Mt 25:2.πολλοί[POLLOI] (1 Macc 5:26; 9:69) J 6:60,66; 7:31; 11:19,45.οἱ πλείονες[hOI PLEIONES] 1 Cor 15:6.οὐδείς[OUDEIS] (Epict. 1, 29, 37; 1 Macc 5:54; 4 Macc 14:4; Ar.13, 6; Just., D. 16, 2) J 7:19; 16:5.χιλιάδες ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς[XILIADES EK PASAHS FULHS] Rv 7:4.Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. (3rd ed.) (297). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Of course, one does not simply genuflect and assent when BDAD states something, but I would be cautious to go against that judgment.164. The partitivegenitiveor the genitive of the divided whole, while not yet extinct, is being driven out by the use of the prepositions ἐκ (ἀπό, ἐν); s.A. Wilhelm, WSt61/2 (1943–7) 167–89. (1) The genitive (alone) predominates with τις(except in Jn), is exclusively used with ἕκαστος(but πᾶς ἐξ ὑμῶνLk 14:33), often with εἷς. Ἐκis customarily found with τίς. Other examples of the genitive (alone): Lk 18:11οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, R 15:26τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῶν ἁγίων, H 7:5?; idiomatic τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων1 P 5:9(strictly speaking incorrect). Μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες χιλιάδων[XILIADES XILIADWN] Rev 5:11OTis a translation Hebraism (Johannessohni20f.; E. Hofmann, Ausdrucksverstärkung50–2). As predicate: 1 T 1:20ὧν ἐστιν Ὑμέναιος [MURIADES MURIADWN KAI XILIADES XILIADWN], A 23:6, with ἐκ[EK] Lk 22:58, Jn 18:17, 1 C 12:15, 16, (2 Clem14.1, 18.1,) with ἀπό[APO] Homil Clem 15.3. This ἐκ[EK] is hardly classical, although μόνος ἐξ ἁπάντων[MONOS EC hAPANTWN] and the like appear (μόνος[MONOS] always by itself in NT); ἀπό[APO] is even less classical (pap.s.Kuhring20; Rossberg22; Mayserii2, 348f.; LXXs.Johannessohni17; MGr): Mt 27:21τίνα ἀπὸ τῶν δύο[TINA APO TWN DUO] (τίνα[TINA] alone sys) = Attic πότερον τούτοιν [POTERON TOUTOIN]! There are, however, [Page 91] classical models for ἐν: τις (τινες) [EN: TIS (TINES)] ἐν ὑμῖν[EN hUMIN] 1 C 15:12, Ja 5:13, 14, 19, τις ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ[TIS EN TWi SUNEDRIWi] A 5:34(ἐκ τοῦ συνεδρίου[EK TOU SUNEDRIOU] D); but the local significance ‘in, among’ is still clearly perceptible in most instances. Cf. ἐκ[EK] and ἀπό[APO] instead of the partitivegenitive with verbs §169. (2) The partitivegenitive or its equivalent is also used as subject or object: Jn 16:17εἶπον ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν[EIPON EK TWN MAQHTWN] (‘some of his disciples’), Lk 21:16θανατώσουσιν ἐξ ὑμῶν[QANATWSOUSIN EC hUMWN] (scil.τινας [TINAS]). Such expressions are quite rare in classical (K.–G.i345f.; Schwyzerii102; Nachmanson, Beiträge34.1; Mlt.72f.[112]; Mayserii2, 351, 352), but common in Semitic languages (Hebrew and Aramaic מִן, therefore often in LXX; s.Johannessohni18f.; Huber69f.). (3) The country within which a city etc. lies also stands in the partitivegenitive (always with article, §26(16); the usage is found in class., pap.: Mayserii2, 126): ἐν Ταρσῷ τῆς Κιλικίας[EN TARSWi THS KILIKIAS] A 22:3; cf.§26(16). (4) Ὀψὲ σαββάτων[OYE SABBATWN] Mt 28:1according to what follows and according to Mk 16:1means ‘afterthe sabbath’. (5) The classical reverse assimilation of gender and number occurs in τὰ ἡμίσεια[TA hHMISEIA] (τὰ ἥμισυ[TA hHMISU] §48) τῶν ὑπαρχόντων[TWN hUPARXONTWN] Lk 19:8; cf.classical ἡ ἡμίσεια τῆς γῆς[hH hHMISEIA THS GHS] etc. (K.–G.i279; Mayserii2, 123). Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (90). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Note that it is not the object of the preposition which is a part but rather the item which preceeds the preposition which is a part of the item which is the object of the preposition.  Thus in “some [“from among”] of the disciples” the “some” are a part of the whole, the disciples. georgegfsomsel… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________—– Original Message —-From: Edgar Foster <edgarfoster2003 at yahoo.com>To: list < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 12:42:14 PMSubject: [] Revelation 7:4 and IsraelGreetings,The text reads (Revelation 7:4): KAI HKOUSA TON ARIQMON TWN ESFRAGISMENWN hEKATON TESSARAKONTA TESSARES XILIADES ESFRAGISMENOI EK PASHS FULHS hUIWN ISRAHL.Would you consider EK PASHS FULHS hUIWN ISRAHL an example of a partitive or wholative genitive such that John’s thought is that the 144,000 (a part) are taken out of Israel (the whole) without exhaustively accounting for the entire class or nation Israel. Another way to word what I’m asking is, does the Greek here imply that “Israel” in this passage is not restricted to the 144,000 sealed ones?Thanks,Edgar FosterLenoir-Rhyne College      — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] DUNAMIS…ESTIN in Rom. 1:16[] DUNAMIS…ESTIN in Rom. 1:16