Fulfilled Prophecy

Young was a major translator I'd have thought - he used 'and'.The Vulgate, whilst not English, is a very very major translation. It uses 'and' (or rather 'et').

quote:

---

You continue to miss and obfuscate my point.

---

Disagreement is not obfusction.

quote:

---

Though there are Hebrew words for "but" there is no in-word prefix for "but."

---

Thus if the original author agreed with you he would have used a word meaning "but" in the sense you want - instead of a prefix which cannot be read as you wish to read it.

quote:

---

Since there is no Hebrew "but" prefix for the purpose of translation the word "but" must be added for whatever reason the translator had to use it.

---

And reasons have been suggested - for one it sounds better. More importantly the reading you oppose is consistent with "and", "but" and the Hebrew, while yours isn't really compatible with any of them.

quote:

---

2. That the usage of the word but divides/separates is indicative that possibly translators who added the word "but" for the English language translation saw a division/separation as I do (abe: in the context.)

---

Since "but" can also be used to connect - and the vav-prefix is used to connect and not to seperate then obviously the translators - knowing Hebrew - meant "but" to connect.

quote:

---

3. None of the major translators of the English Bible used the "and" prefix in their translations and no less than five of them used either the word "but" or the word "though," though having the same connotation as "but." Four of these were "but" and one "though." Nahum 2 (KJV) - He that dasheth in pieces

---

So what happened to Green. Does his view no longer count because he disagrees with you ?And five of the translations on that site don't use "and" "but" OR "though". Why do you not mention that ?

quote:

---

4. Since five of the translators (Hebrew scholars) saw fit to use the separation words, "but" and "though," there must have been something in the context which motivated them to do so in order to convey the Hebrew message to the English, the Hebrew having no "but" prefix perse.

---

And given that we have yet to see any evidence that any scholars agree with your interpretation - and plenty of evidence that many do not - and because it seems that your reading is contrary to the Hebrew text it is rather unlikely that they used it because they agree with you.I strongly suggest that instead of ignorign contrary evidence and relying on obvious sophistry which ignores both English AND Hebrew that you actually look for some significant evidence that supports your claims. So far you've managed nothing.

You are correct but neither of these negate or refute my statement since the vulgate is not in English and by and large the laity have never heard of Young's Bible.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

1. Disagreement is fine but can be done in an obfuscating manner which, imo, was the case.2. The author did not add any word to the Hebrew, nor did he translate the "but" from any word in the Hebrew in 2:1. He simply added a word so as to satisfy his then understanding of the context. The same evidently goes with the other translators who used it. My point that the Hebrew uses fewer words is relevant here in that unlike English, some of translating it to English must be determined from context.3. In this case the "but" would distinguish Ninevah from restored Judah whereas "and" would not necessarily. The translator makes the judgement.4. Green's original "but" was supportive to my view as well as five of the major translators.
Whether or not the "but" scholars agree with my position, I repeat...repeat....repeat that it is supportive of my position in that it is not conjunctive to the data context of chapter 2 regarding Jacob's restoration and Ninevah.
-
5. Can you document that "many" translators of major translations have been unsupportive to my position? I don't think so. So far nobody has, but to the contrary.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

quote:

---

1. Disagreement is fine but can be done in an obfuscating manner which, imo, was the case.

---

Looks to me more like you throw around accusations of obfuscation because you don't liek disagreement.

quote:

---

2. The author did not add any word to the Hebrew, nor did he translate the "but" from any word in the Hebrew in 2:1. He simply added a word so as to satisfy his then understanding of the context. The same evidently goes with the other translators who used it. My point that the Hebrew uses fewer words is relevant here in that unlike English, some of translating it to English must be determined from context.

---

The AUTHOR wrote in Hebrew. He used a connective which some translators render as "but". They did not mean "but" to indicate the sort of seperation that you mean because that is not a valid reading of the Hebrew. Not one translator or Bible scholar has been shown to support your interpretation while several have been shown to disagree.

quote:

---

3. In this case the "but" would distinguish Ninevah from restored Judah whereas "and" would not necessarily. The translator makes the judgement.

---

Except that the translator did NOT make that judgement. YOU did. That is your interpretation - and you have yet to provide any reasonable argument that that is what any if the translators meant.

quote:

---

4. Green's original "but" was supportive to my view as well as five of the major translators.
Whether or not the "but" scholars agree with my position, I repeat...repeat....repeat that it is supportive of my position in that it is not conjunctive to the data context of chapter 2 regarding Jacob's restoration and Ninevah.

---

i.e all you can do is repeat your false assertions, ignoring the points raised against them. The fact that Green changed his mind alos suggests that you are wrong. The fact that your opinion of Green seems to depend on whether you think he agrees with you or not is - well typical of your arguing style. If an expert agrees with you then he is a truly great expert who must be believed - when he doesn't he's just wrong and should be ignored. Can't you see that that is pure bias ?

quote:

---

5. Can you document that "many" translators of major translations have been unsupportive to my position? I don't think so. So far nobody has, but to the contrary.

---

As has been mentioned earlier the NASB (through headings) and the Amplified Bible (through marked editorial additions) indicate that the verses in question (Nahum 2:3-4) refer to Nineveh. The NIV also refers to Nineveh in a similar way, although it is not indicated that this is not literally in the text. (I would note that Holman, like the NASB indicates that Nahum 2 is about an attack on Nineveh)I've pointed to translations that refer to troops armed with spears - including the ASV, which YOU recommended. And most refer to shields. You've not dealt with that issue yet.See also Modulus' Message 210 Which you replied to, so it's hard to see how you can claim that you didn't know of the commentators who disagree with you.

In what theologians call the "Olivet Discourse" as per Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 (as each of these writers remember and record), Jesus stated in Luke 21:38, ""When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near."1. In order to get the whole account here, one must glean from what each of the three desciples remembered and/or recorded.1. This statement was one of his points in answer to questions from the desciples concerning future events and concerning the time of his 2nd advent.2. Certainly it would not be feasable nor sensible for Christians to be gazing up at the sky for 2000 years looking for the actual appearance of Jesus in the clouds as he said he would come. So there must have been other reasons for him to make such a statement.Likely knowing the future as he claimed, he knew that some of the sign events of his 2nd event would be relative to some changes in what was in the sky/atmosphere at the time he spoke those prophetic words.3. Let's note some of the things which have changed in the sky since the Industrial Revolution.a. Skyscrapers
b. airplanes, rockets, jet streams
c. polution/darkening/redening of the horizon, especially in urban and industrial areas
e. spectacular explosives such as fireworks, et al.
f. Satelites
g. space ships
h. weather factors related to ozone and global warming et al.
i. observable cosmos via telescopes
j. lazer
k. towers by day and tower lights, et alAll of these and more we observe today whereas until the industrial revolution it was pretty much what the apostles would see as they looked up by day or night.Until the industrial revolution and beyond, anyone who would wonder why in the world Jesus would make such a statement. Had he said "watch the clouds for me to appear," that would be different, but he said "when you see these thing begin to pass, look up, implying that they needn't begin looking at the sky until some of the end time events of which he had just prophesied began to come into focus, such as the end of the Gentile occupation of the city of Jerusalem which began in the 1967 war as per Luke 21:24 and factors pertaining to nations and industrial revolution.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

1. If I disapproved of disagreement and debate I certainly wouldn't be here at this hostile site as a minority member.2. I have concentrated on the texts themselves. What in my reply to Modulous makes you think I'm being dishonest? I did not say I've read a lot of commentary on Nahum but that likely there are those on both sides of this debate.3. You do not know any more than I do, the motive or reason for the "but" translators to use that word in place of the prefix. All either of us can do is speculate as to what we see as the likely reason.4. I've not ignored you points any more than you've ignored my, so why not drop the segue and move on before the thread runs out.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Once again Buzsaw ignores what the bible actually says.Luke 21:25-28 (NASB) It could mean:Look up to see the signs in Sun Moon and Stars ?OrLook up to see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD ?OrLook up because you have hope - which is what the NASB translation seems to say ?All these things are there in the text. Any or all of them could reasonably be meant.So why should we ignore that and assume that it refers to something not even hinted at in the text ?And look at this

quote:

---

2. Certainly it would not be feasable nor sensible for Christians to be gazing up at the sky for 2000 years looking for the actual appearance of Jesus in the clouds as he said he would come. So there must have been other reasons for him to make such a statement.

---

Compare with what the verse really says: Christians AREN'T asked to look up UNTIL the events start to happen. And they aren't expected to keep looking up for 2000 years because they only start happening when the end is near. This is just a strawman invented so that Buz has an excuse to insert his own inventions.So again all we have is a clear misrepresentaiton of the Bible.

quote:

---

1. If I disapproved of disagreement and debate I certainly wouldn't be here at this hostile site as a minority member.

---

If you didn't disapprove of disagreement and debate you wouldn't get so angry and start throwing false accusations when peopel disagree with you.

quote:

---

2. I have concentrated on the texts themselves. What in my reply to Modulous makes you think I'm being dishonest? I did not say I've read a lot of commentary on Nahum but that likely there are those on both sides of this debate.

---

You certainly have not concentrated on the texts themselves. You ignore context, you ignore translations that don't suit you (including translatiosn that you yourself recommend when they are convenient) you don't. And I didn't accuse you of any dishonesty in your reply to Modulus - I simply pointed out that your reply showed that you had seen the post and so you should be aware that there were many experts who disagreed with you. Which is rather significant when you appeal to expert opinion if it offers even the slight support of choosing a word you find convenient. Yet you don't refer to oen single expert who agrees with your interpretation.

quote:

---

3. You do not know any more than I do, the motive or reason for the "but" translators to use that word in place of the prefix. All either of us can do is speculate as to what we see as the likely reason.

---

If you do not know that the translators agree with your interpretation then you have no case. And I would add that I know that arachnophilia has pointed out that your reading contradicts the Hebrew -something you have not addressed. I know that there are valid readings which are consistent with all the translations and arachnophilia's understanding of Hebew. I know that there are experts who clearly disagree with your reading and we haven't found any that agree. If you know all that then you cannot honestly suggest that your reading is the best, based on the evidence.

quote:

---

4. I've not ignored you points any more than you've ignored my, so why not drop the segue and move on before the thread runs out.

---

That's not true, of course. I've not ignored any significant poitns of yours, but you hve ignored significant points that I have raised.

1. Verse 31 implies that they see/observe[/b]. See what? The things beginning to come to pass of which he spoke, some of which he last mentioned being "up."2. For one to see what's up, one must stand erect and lift up the head, so couple these two verses and that is at least one way to take the message of the text. For one to see what's around him/her, one needn't necessarily stand erect. I can understand why you as a secularist skeptic of Biblical prophecy would see it as simply standing straight, heads up. What purpose for that other than a proud look which the Bible condemns. Certainly he would not have them stand heads up and erect as if at attention all the while after the things began to come to pass.3. As to your last point, he didn't tell them to beging looking up/stand erect immediately. He told them to do so only after they saw the things of which he had just spoke beginning to come to pass. We who are apprised on the prophecies, both OT and NT believe we are seeing the latter day signs of the things of which he prophesied. If you choose to explain away the futuristic prophetic and messianic aspects of the prophecy, that's your perrogative.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

quote:

---

1. Verse 31 implies that they see/observe. See what? The things beginning to come to pass of which he spoke, some of which he last mentioned being "up."

---

Luke 21:31 implies that they see the things that Jesus mentioned. It does not imply that they see anything that he did NOT mention. Which rules out everything on your list.And let me remind you that the NASB does not even have your "look up" - it has "straighten up and lift up your heads" in 21:28 - which doesn't contradict your preferred translation, but DOES contradict your interpretation.

quote:

---

2. For one to see what's up, one must stand erect and lift up the head, so couple these two verses and that is at least one way to take the message of the text.

---

But not one justified by the text. If Jesus was instructing people to look up it should have said so explicitly and unambiguously. If Jesus meant that they would see something it should have been mentioned. You're just adding what you want to see to the text.

quote:

---

For one to see what's around him/her, one needn't necessarily stand erect. I can understand why you as a secularist skeptic of Biblical prophecy would see it as simply standing straight, heads up. What purpose for that other than a proud look which the Bible condemns. Certainly he would not have them stand heads up and erect as if at attention all the while after the things began to come to pass.

---

Or there's a quite sensible reading that you should keep your spirits up and not abandon hope "because your redemption is drawing near". Now maybe only a secular skeptic of Bible prophecy would spot that the Bible verses in question have a perfectly natural reading. But - if true - that should be a very shameful thing for all Christians.

quote:

---

3. As to your last point, he didn't tell them to beging looking up/stand erect immediately

---

So your interpretation that the actual text of the Bible - without your additions - does imply exactly that is wrong.

quote:

---

He told them to do so only after they saw the things of which he had just spoke beginning to come to pass.

---

The things that he (supposedly) mentioned. None of which are on your list.

quote:

---

We who are apprised on the prophecies, both OT and NT believe we are seeing the latter day signs of the things of which he prophesied. If you choose to explain away the futuristic prophetic and messianic aspects of the prophecy, that's your perrogative.

---

You're not "apprised" of Bible prophecy, Buz. Most of what you say is not in the Bible, OT or NT - it's made up by you or someone else. I'm not the one who has to explain things away. You have to explain why you have to rely on translation shopping, strained readings and all the rest of your rhetorical tactics. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

it's not obfuscation simply because you fail to understand it. this tells me there is something greviously wrong with the logic of your argument. you seem to be working from two presuppositions: "the text has to use a prefix" and "the text means but."you are, essentially, putting the cart before the horse. we start the original, when we translate. not the translation -- the translation is the final result. and we certainly do not start with the interpretation. that comes after we know what the text says. i gave you five examples of how the authors would emphasize difference with a "but" in the text. if they authors wanted to say "but" they would have used one of those words. there is no prefix for "but" -- why would it have to be a prefix, buz? because there's a vav-prefix in the text?that prefix means "and." you are assuming a reason. i gave you another. so at best you have a "possible." great argument. clearly, your contextual reading if very flawed. i doubt that one simple word indicates that knowledgeable translators read as badly as you do. let's look at why, shall we?

quote:

---

(Old JPS)

​

8 And the queen is uncovered, she is carried away, and her handmaids moan as with the voice of doves, tabering upon their breasts.

​

9 But Nineveh hath been from of old like a pool of water; yet they flee away; 'Stand, stand'; but none looketh back.

---

"the queen is carried away, but the city does nothing."contrary to your logic, "but" (in english) is a conjunction, and it connects things. this "but" connects it to the earlier sentance. nineveh does nothing while her queen is carried away. it does not point to a major transition in the text, just a contrast in the sentance. because that contrast is implied in the hebrew, "but" is an acceptable english translation. but it really says "and."context does not agree with you here. "though" is not the same word as "but." it changes around the dependent and independent clause.

quote:

---

(NKJV)

​

Though Nineveh of old was like a pool of water,
Now they flee away.
"Halt! Halt!" they cry;
But no one turns back.

---

there's the contrast -- nineveh used to be calm, now it is not. neither of these plausible interpretations of the grammar support your implausible position that the preceeding verses are not about nineveh. in fact, your chosen translation, "but," actually contradicts your view, because it indicates that the prior sentance has to be about nineveh. this is reading comprenehsion 101, buz. it's not "my viewpoint." it's what the text says.Edited by arachnophilia, : typos

---

in fact, buz, i do.

---

the truly ironic is that even if it DID say "but" in hebrew, and the authors wanted to emphasize a contrast -- "but" is still a grammatical conjunction, and connects the clause to the previous clause. meaning that if it DID say "but" it would contradict buz's point. (see the above post).the contrast buz means to imply is simply a distortion of the text, in every way possible. it's a distortion of the hebrew, the english, translation, and context. i am absolutely aghast that this debate comes down to how to read a single letter of the original, and that buz is not only utterly incapable of reading the text itself correctly, but that he also refuses to listen to anyone who might know moe than he does.shall i diagram that last sentance? it's got a "but" in it, clearly i'm contrasting buz with someone else several hundred years in the future, right?i feel like i'm in elementrary school grammar classes all over again.

---

It also says in verse 31 to look/see/observe relative to what he said. What he's saying is "straighten up, lift up your heads and observe." The things in my list are things which are up which for the purpose of observation one would be required to straighten up and lift the head.I cannot empirically refute your analysis nor have you empirically refuted mine. I'm offering my interpretation for what it's worth as you have. Those who read it may read and learn what makes sense to them from either of us. Perhaps the good of presenting our views will arouse some interest in some who were unaware of the prophecy.