Fulfilled Prophecy

no, they were the mouth piece of god, what you are doing is equating being a prophit with being an oracle, which not the same, a person saying "god will do this in one year", is not the same as saying "you will find wealth or great fortue or be blessed" god is tell prophets what he wants people to dothe problem is prophets are not oracles as the christians want to think they are, yes some prophecies might be for the future, not its not very far in the future and it impacted the prophets life time the apolgetic ones are, the ones that believe the OT is about jesus are, that the NT is a conteniuation of the OT are

ok, just checking. yes, i know. i had the hebrew in front of me when i asked jar what translation he was using. it's clear from the context who nahum is talking to (well, it's clear to everyone here whose name isn't "buzsaw" anyways). but inserting it explicitly when it is not in the original isn't exactly ethical. no, obviously it does not. sorry buz, the hebrew says "and." you're hanging your point on a misreading of a vav-prefix? lol buz. lol. it's a vav-prefix, buz! this is elementary hebrew. bet-prefixes are "of." mem-prefixes are "from." vav-prefixes are "and." this isn't a matter of me convincing anyone of this. it's just another instance of you hanging some ridiculous misreading on forced vagueries and misrenderings of the text. yes, your interlinear text says "but." big deal, buz. it's commonly translated "but" when that particular translator wants to make a more abrupt transition. but the prefix means "and" and is simply a standard way of starting sentances in the bible. it starts the majority of sentances in the text, buz. that's how incredibly basic this point is.you wanna check a few translations of this? half the ones i have available leave off the "but" or "and." most of those have a "though" (which applies to the "but" later in the sentance). yes, buz. depending on the context. infering context from a vav-prefix is entirely backwards. are you really having this much trouble picture the charioteers of judah crashing throug the streets of nineveh, lighting everything in sight on fire? i can't tell if you have too much imagination or too little. read it again, buz. pre-babylon judah. dates BC count backwards. assyrian fell (as predicted by nahum) in 612 bc. 26 years LATER in 586 bc, judah was conquered by babylon. nahum is tlaking about the time between then -- he can't be talking about the solution to the babylonian captivity that hasn't happened yet, when the assyrian invasion is still going on. especially since all the text ever mentions is assyria.why is this so hard for you?Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

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.

it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the prophets to think of them as "predictors of the future." they were religious leaders, and thinkers. they delivered messages and sermons to the people of judah and israel. they were the voice of god to the jewish people. most of what they said actually pertained to the present, and most of their predictions regarded near-future things. the coming babylonian exile, etc. often, their messages were thinly veiled rants or threats at foreign occupying powers, in an attempt to rally the nationalistic strength of their people. something that was, itself, entirely responsible for seeing the jewish people come back from babylonian captivity. without a prominent leader urging resistance and emphasizing hebrew identity, they would have been successfully integrated in the babylonian populace. ezekiel, for instance, didn't so much predict the return from exile as much as he actually made it happen.one of our earliest descriptions of a prophet is aaron. moses cannot speak to pharaoh, so god appoints aaron to speak for moses. god says that moses will be like a god to pharaoh, and aaron will be his prophet. so our earliest clear image of prophecy is of one man speaking for god.if it's not implied from that, deuteronomy spells out that moses is a prophet. joshua takes up his role -- joshua is a prophet too. did these mean predict the future? no, they spoke for god to israel, and lead israel through troubled times. that is what a prophet does.to think that "prophetic" means "predictive" is a product of another anachronism of colloquial usage. the hebrew word has no sense of predicting the future; only speaking.

---

yes, exactly. they are nice simple verbs, which are hard to justify translating as anything other than present. the sense is definitally that they are general statement about god's power, from the context, and how the next argument follows from it: "don't f' with god."i'm just not entirely sure that every instance of present tense cannot be predictive, as style varies. for instance, see ezekiel 37, which predicts the restoration from babylonian exile (and spawned the famous "head bone connected to the neck bone" song). it's entirely in past tense, yet predicts a future event. the text describes a vision (which takes place in the past, of course) but the vision has symbolic meaning for the future (wrt ezekiel and co). the style demands past tense, yet it's still predictive prophecy.all i mean to say is that "style varies" and you should be able to tell from context. your analysis of nahum is spot on, and anyone reading it should be able to see that. it's fairly obvious. why buz doesn't get it, i don't know.

---

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". NahumEven 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.

For what it's worth, in the Old Testament (KJV):"and" appears 40987 times in 18292 verses,"but" appears 2324 times in 2193 verses.e-Sword(I didn't check them all, so I can't say for sure that they all come from the vav-prefix. )

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Is it vav at the center of a similar switcheroo in the Song of Songs?The consensus among scholars is that the Shulamite woman says 'I am black and beautiful.' (1.5)
oremus Bible Browser : Song of Songs 1.5The King James Version says 'I am black but' beautiful.
oremus Bible Browser : Song of Songs 1.5___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

yes.

quote:

---

​

shachorah ani v'navah

​

i am black and beautiful

---

---

there's a fair chance that all of the "and"s are vav's. i'm not positive on the "but"s. there is a modern hebrew word that means "but," but i have yet to actually find it in the bible. the hebrew vav-prefix seems to just be a generic conjunction -- insisting on it meaning "but" and the using that "but" to imply a shift is somewhat contradictory to the purpose of the prefix, and really grasping at straws. so, about 94.6% of the time, at least. what is it with these distortionists that they take a word (or in this case, not even a word), and attempt to redefine it with an alternate translation that's used 3% of the time? if i had to gamble, i'd go with the 97%. wouldn't you?

---

Seems to me there is a similar challenge in ancient Greek. Whether the same in modern Greek I do not know.The term kai (pronounced 'kehh' by the modern school) is called a copulative in that it connects things together, and is variously translated: and, also, even, both, then, so, likewise, and not (in the Authorized Version). My Greek professor, if memory serves, asserted that it can also mean 'but.' In actual reading, all those years ago, I began to suspect that kai to the speaker of Koine Greek was bit like 'uhh,' to the speaker of American English.How does one translate 'uhh' to a foreign tongue?Can you think of any instance where 'uhh' might be substituted for vav?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

our argentinian neighbors say "che...." i don't think people write with "uhs" and other verbal pauses. it's an interesting idea, but it seems like a far more formal thing than that, and is definitally used to say "[this] AND [that]."

---

You appear to indicate that there's no other Hebrew prefix for "but." I looked up the five Hebrew prefixes and see none indicative of the word "but" perse. Since the Hebrew is a language of relatively few words, compared to the English language, translators must often determine by context what English word most accurately depicts what the nearest English equivalent is to the manuscript message being translated. Hence scholar/translator/interlinear editor Green apparantly sees the "but" as the most linguistically accurate rendering of the Hebrew prefix "waw" (ancient) "vav" (modern) for the interlinear.Obviously in English "and" can depict a much different meaning than "but" such as in this case. There is a similar problem in the Greek with "these" and "there" as I have encountered in a prophecy in the book of Revelation in which the Greek has neither but the English requires one or the other to make sense. Translators don't always agree which is correct, but a careful examination of the context makes it clear which really makes sense.Evidently Interlinear author and translator/editor Green agrees with me that the "but" should distinguish the former verses from the ones in which the "but" is used, so don't be too condescending towards ole Buz. After all, the "but" implies separation whereas "and" implies conjunction. Green appears to lend support to my contention that the verses relative to Jacob's restoration is not directly revelant to the city of Ninevah. 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

I see the translation you linked does not state precisely which edition the link uses, though it states that it is somewhere between 1976 and 2000. Mine is 1985. 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. Then too, he may indeed be undecided. Thanks for the link.

none that i am aware of. i knew there's a modern word for it, but it's taken me a little time to track down a good searchable concordance to verify that it is indeed used in biblical hebrew.those words would be:

• ‘— - aval.

  quote:

  ---

  2Ch 19:2-3:

  ​

  ...therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD. Nevertheless there are good things found in thee...

  ---

  ​
• - ak.

  quote:

  ---

  Gen 9:3-4

  ​

  Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

  ---

• - aken. (the opposite of - ken, "yes.")

  quote:

  ---

  Job 32:7-8

  ​

  I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

  ---

• — - ulam.

  quote:

  ---

  Gen 28:19

  ​

  And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.

  ---

• - af

  quote:

  ---

  Lev 26:43-44:

  ​

  ...they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes. And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I [am] the LORD their God.

  ---

keep in mind that these are just the most likely ones. there are a few other words that could acceptably be translated "but," but i i have listed them, imho, in order of their probability of usage, as i understand it. the first two are commonly used in modern english. relatively few? they've got five common words up there for "but." this is bs. of course there's some subtle variations in wording dependent upon translation and best matching equivalents and context. everyone knows that, i hope. but you are attempting to make the bible a vague and flexible document, which you can then bend to your will. your argument is circular -- "green thought the context was this, so he rendered this word this way, so that tells me the context is this." wow, buz. wow. i am amazed at this observation.no one else here can believe you are hanging this point on a single letter, which you are forcibly misreading. in one of his translations, but not another? this is really convincing, buz. you're forcing a reading that simply is not present in (incredibly) elementary grammar of this one singular letter attached to a proper name. had this actually been as important a point as you seem to think it is, nahum could easily have used one of the choices above that does mean a contradiction.at best, you have a maybe. you're straining at gnats. you say tomato, i say tomato. i guess that doesn't sound as good written. if one wants to sell a contradictory conjunction, there are choices that actually represent this, and they are related to much different words. aval is related to the concept of mourning or lamenting. ak and aken come from negations of a positive. ulam comes from "perhaps." none of them are simple prefix connections that join one thing to another. in english "and" and "but" are used as similar conjunctions, but in hebrew they are not even close. the vav-prefix is a conjunction, and implies joining things together. it's totally the opposite. i don't think that's even the case. i think you are reading a sloppy translation, and i think your understanding of context and figures of speech in english is sloppy, BUT i think your interpretation is even sloppier.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---