Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fulfilled Prophecy
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 196 of 303 (375813)
01-10-2007 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by jar
01-09-2007 11:32 PM


Re: So let's look at Nahum
To be fair to Buz, I suggest that you check other translations, Jar. So far as I know the explicit naming of Nineveh in Nahum 1, apart from 1:1, is only found in the NIV. The Amplified Bible does add referecnes to Nineveh - but in squared brackets to indicate that they are not part of the explicit text.
That aside, although the references seem not to be explicit in the original text, they are certainly justified by the context. I can't see a good reason to say that Nahum 1:11-14 refer to any other place, given the explicit statement of Nahum 1:1.
If Buz wants to argue otherwise - and he needs to if he wants to preserve his case - he'll need more than he's come up with so far. And he'll need to explain why his reading should be accepted over that of the compilers of the NASB, the Amplified Bible and the NIV. A bit of a difficult task when he doesn't even have a viable alternative reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by jar, posted 01-09-2007 11:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 01-10-2007 11:07 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 205 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2007 2:45 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 203 of 303 (375878)
01-10-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by johnfolton
01-10-2007 11:45 AM


Re: So let's look at Nahum
Havign done a little investigation it seems that this is not a translation difference - it is due to a difference in the Greek texts. The Nestle-Aland text has "pathr", meaning father.
It looks to me as if the NIV translators did the right thing in this instance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2007 11:45 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2007 2:54 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 211 of 303 (375994)
01-10-2007 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Buzsaw
01-10-2007 4:53 PM


Re: So let's look at Nahum
I'm not a fan of the NIV either. It's notorious for "correcting" contradictions.
quote:
..you will see that Ninevah is not in the events of chapter one.
You are wrong, it definitely IS in the events of Chapter 1. The NIV may add to the literal text but it does not significantly affect the reading. Nahum 1:1 tells us that the book of Nahum is a prophecy against Nineveh. So Nahum 1:9. and 1:11-14 clearly refer to Nineveh.
quote:
...in the remaining verses of chapter one you see a number of "thee"s, the last of which implies to whom the "thees" refer. It goes in verse 15: "Keep thy feasts, O Judah, perform thy vows; for the wicked one shall no more pass through thee; he is utterly cut off.
So who is the "they" who are "many" in "full strength" who shall be "cut down" ? Who is it that "devises evil" ? Who shall be sent to the grave ? Not Judah.
quote:
Chapter one, folks, is a segue end time prophecy segued in there to proclaim to Ninevah that they, like the other world enemies of Judah and Jerusalem would eventually all be taken out.
This reading ignores the fact that muvh of it is written in the present tense (and some even in the past tense !). For instance the references to Bashan, Carmel and Lebanon in 1:3 are ALL in the present tense. This is not prediction - predictions would be in the future tense.
[quote] I see the chariots of chapter two as descriptive of something far different than in ancient days.
[/.quote]
Well here's the ASV's translation of Nahum 2:3-5
quote:
3 The shield of his mighty men is made red, the valiant men are in scarlet: the chariots flash with steel in the day of his preparation, and the cypress spears are brandished.
4 The chariots rage in the streets; they rush to and fro in the broad ways: the appearance of them is like torches; they run like the lightnings.
5 He remembereth his nobles: they stumble in their march; they make haste to the wall thereof, and the mantelet is prepared.
Shields. Cypress spears. Nobles. Walls. Mantelets. This all fits with an ancient army far better than a modern army. So, come to that, do chariots. Which could be armoured, polished, and move very quickly by the standards of the ancient world.
So an ancient army fits the text, while a modern army does not.
quote:
Their ways were not broadways
You ignore the ASV here - and if you used the KJV you misrepresentedit. The ASV says "streets", the KJV "broad ways" - and why should a great city like Nineveh not hasve some broad streets by the standards of the ancient world ?
quote:
They were only as fast as a horse.
i.e. they were certainly fast enough.
quote:
For the most part they were not of steel.
Armoured chariots were certainly not unknown. Or have you forgotten th "iron chariots" mentioned in Judges ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2007 4:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2007 12:23 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 224 of 303 (376114)
01-11-2007 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by arachnophilia
01-11-2007 12:23 AM


Re: tense
Perhaps you would like to show an example where an English translation renders a far future prediction in the present tense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2007 12:23 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2007 10:30 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 225 of 303 (376117)
01-11-2007 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Buzsaw
01-10-2007 8:45 PM


Re: So is that yes?
quote:
1. The name, Ninevah is not in the Hebrew manuscripts of Nahum 1:1 as your liberal text erroneously implies.
It's in the one I just looked up. It's in every translation. Even the ones you recommend. So I very much doubt that it is not present in your interlinear Bible.
quote:
2. According to my Hebrew/English Interlinear which supplies the nearest English equivalent to the Hebrew text, verse 8 begins with the significant little word "but as per the Hebrew word of that text. In order to understand at what point Ninevah is being honed in on, one must note that word, "but." Why? Because it implies that the chariots of Ninevah are likely not the same chariots described in verse one.
I suppose that somebody desperately clutching at straws might make such an argument but turning the text into nonsense is hardly a valid method of interpretation. A better reading is that it is comparing the past glories of Nineveh with the predicted destruction.
Let me add that Interlinear Bibles often do not concentrate on literal translation - instead simply presenting one translation in parallel with an original-language text. Certainly the "but:" does not appear to correspond to any Hebrew word. Young's Literal Translationuses "And" rather than "but" to start the verse.
So it appears that your argument fails on both points. "But" is not a clear and essential part of the Hebrew text and even if it were it could not mean what you say it means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2007 8:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2007 10:37 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 226 of 303 (376118)
01-11-2007 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Buzsaw
01-10-2007 8:06 PM


Re: Thread Not A Ninevah Thread
quote:
TO ALL: If I don't respond further to this Ninevah segue, don't be surprised unless I see something deemed substantial worthy of response.
WE're not surpised. Especially as your "not worthy of answer" includes points that you CANNOT answer. Like the ASV's translation of Nahum 2:3 - the translation that you recommend contradicts your interpretation of the verse. Either the ASV trnaslators got it badly wrong or your interpretation is wrong. And if the ASV translators are so wrong, then why reccomend them so highly when there is no shortage of other translations to choose from ?
quote:
I'm not conceding anything.
Sure. We don't expect you to concede that the Bible says what it says. I expect you to go on with your war against the Bible and the truth.
quote:
I rest my case with the evidence I have posted so as not to stonewall the thread.
OK so all you have is some obvious twisting of the Biblical text. It's pretty easy to come up with "accurate prophecies" is you don't care what the text really says and you can use your own hindsight to "interpret" it. But if you don't care about what the Bible says, why should we ? Your entire argument is self-defeating.
quote:
I would like to address the return of the Jews in light of Biblical prophecy
I beleive we've already done this. Most of the prophecies clearly refer to the end of the Babylonian exile. And we've gone into depth on Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse (and just so you don't make the same mistake again the exile and return is ONLY in Luke's version)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2007 8:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 231 of 303 (376291)
01-11-2007 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by arachnophilia
01-11-2007 10:30 AM


Re: tense
Looking at the NASB translation is says "Behold your King is coming to you" (whcih is rather ambiguous in tense, but lots of other verses preceding it and part of the same passage are future tense. And the latter point applies to the KJV, which you seem to have used. So this really isn't the example I was looking for - if you look at the passage as a whole it is clearly referrign to the future.
What I wanted was an example where the entire prophecy was written in the present tense - not one verse of it, where the surrounding text is clearly wirtten in the future tense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2007 10:30 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 3:18 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 232 of 303 (376294)
01-11-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by arachnophilia
01-11-2007 10:37 AM


Re: So is that yes?
i.e. it doesn't refer to a specific word, as Buzsaw claimed. It refers to a prefix to a word. Moreover the "and" translation" is at least as valid as the "but" whcih Buz relies on even though it doesn't really support his case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2007 10:37 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 3:20 AM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 238 of 303 (376409)
01-12-2007 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Buzsaw
01-11-2007 11:01 PM


Re: Were Prophets Historians Or Prophets?
Neither. Prophets were primarily addressing the current situation their people faced. They might include predictions, but generally they were related to the present.
The only prophet I can think of who included large amounts of history is the author of Daniel who clearly wrote at around the time of the Maccabaean revolt. (And before we get th usual strawman that it is his "successes" that determine the dating the real reason has more to do with what he gets wrong than what he gets right.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Buzsaw, posted 01-11-2007 11:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 243 of 303 (376425)
01-12-2007 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by arachnophilia
01-12-2007 3:18 AM


Re: tense
That really supports my point, then. Nahum 1:2-1:6 are entirely present tense in the NASB. 1:8-1:10 are generalities and 1:11 refers to events in the recent past and 1:12-1:15 refer to what God intends to do about that and the present situation. So the use of tense indicates that 1:2-1:10 are not specific predictions - they are simply statements abouts God's power and what he does to His enemies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 3:18 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 4:07 AM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 246 of 303 (376451)
01-12-2007 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Buzsaw
01-11-2007 10:29 PM


Re: So is that yes?
quote:
Are you trying to convince the www that you are a more knowledgeable and accurate translator of Hebrew to English than the Hebrew scholar than JP Green, editor and translator of the Hebrew/English Interlinear which has gone through 12 editions? Since the Hebrew language has relatively few words, perhaps either words are acceptable, depending on the context. Apparantly, Green sees the context as rendering "but" the more acceptible translation.
Or maybe J. P. Green is undecided on the issue. In this version of his translation - the same translation as in your Interlinear Bible - he uses "And".
Nahum
Even if you could justify an argument that Green was necessarily correct and all the translators who disagreed were wrong - and oyu can't - it is clear that "but" is not unambiguously the corect translation. And even if it were your reading would still be no good.
So again, you've got no case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Buzsaw, posted 01-11-2007 10:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Buzsaw, posted 01-12-2007 11:09 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 260 of 303 (376693)
01-13-2007 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Buzsaw
01-12-2007 11:09 PM


Re: So is that yes?
quote:
Perhaps, as you suggest, he has changed his mind if this edition is later than mine. If that be the case, his being supportive to my position has changed. At least, if that be the case, he was once evidently supportive to my view.
The 2000 copyright date would indicate that this is later version than your 1985 text. But let us note that the question of "and" or "but" is vital to your argument but trivial in actually demonstrating it. We have no indication that Green agrees with your interpretation of "but" or any other of the contentious points.
Thus it is misleading to state that Green supports your position because it has not been shown that he has supported it in any significant way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Buzsaw, posted 01-12-2007 11:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Buzsaw, posted 01-13-2007 5:28 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 263 of 303 (376772)
01-13-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Buzsaw
01-13-2007 5:28 PM


Re: So is that yes?
quote:
PaulK, you miss my point that the "but" separates whereas "and" conjuncts.
No, I don't miss the point. Because it isn't true. "But" doesn't even separate most of the time, if ever - it is often used to indicate a caveat, for instance. Moreover, in this case it appears that that is not a viable translation - the prefix does indicate a conjunction, usually rendered "and", sometimes "but".
quote:
Thus the usage of "but" by Green is supportive to my position regardless of his reason for usage of it.
That's just silly. You're saying that even if he completely disagrees with he, he supports you. His reasons have to do with his reading of the text - and THAT is the very issue. So far all we see indicates that the choice of "but" or "and" have no great significance to the reading - which rules out your interpretation completely. But then the English language also rules out your interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Buzsaw, posted 01-13-2007 5:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 272 of 303 (377205)
01-15-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Buzsaw
01-15-2007 11:10 AM


Re: So is that yes?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2007 11:10 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2007 5:08 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 275 of 303 (377235)
01-15-2007 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Buzsaw
01-15-2007 5:08 PM


Re: So is that yes?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2007 5:08 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2007 6:52 PM PaulK has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024