Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,900 Year: 4,157/9,624 Month: 1,028/974 Week: 355/286 Day: 11/65 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fulfilled Prophecy
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 200 of 303 (375861)
01-10-2007 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by johnfolton
01-10-2007 11:45 AM


Re: So let's look at Nahum
The NIV perverts the virgin birth!
Interesting. It seems it is not the only version that replaces Ioseph with 'father'. I was surprised to see it even happens in the Vulgate!
quote:
et erat pater eius et mater mirantes super his quae dicebantur de illo
I thought there must be a good reason why the catholics used father here. Looks like they got this from the NU-text rather than the M-Text. I concur with my first sentiment...interesting.

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

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 210 of 303 (375982)
01-10-2007 5:59 PM


scholars
Well, I'm not going to try and convince anyone of anything, the thread is just going round in circles now so I'd just like to add some information. These are from some commentaries found on Blue Letter Bible.
Chuck Smith - Pastor of Calvary Chapel seems to be of the opinion that Nahum is basically about Ninevah, not the end of the world.
quote:
The message is that of God's judgment that is going to come against Nineveh and against the Assyrian empire. A hundred years plus earlier, Jonah had been called to Nineveh. But the people of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah, and Nineveh was spared for another hundred and fifty years or so. But now God is proclaiming the judgment that is gonna come against Nineveh and against Assyria.
Pastor David Guzik (Calvary) also agrees that is about Ninevah and not the end of the world.
Pastor Ray Stedman (Peninsula Bible Church) says the same things.
quote:
As we begin this book it is important to know why and at whom God is so angry. this prophecy is directed against the city of Nineveh to whom God sent the prophet Jonah.
Matthew Henry, that famous commentator concurs :
quote:
even this prophet, though wholly taken up in foretelling the destruction of Nineveh, which speaks terror to the Assyrians, is, even in that, comforter to the ten tribes of Israel, who, it is probable, were now lately carried captives into Assyria.
Finally, A. R. FAUSSET says:
quote:
as the prophet advances, vengeance on the capital of the Assyrian foe is the predominant topic...
...The prophecy is remarkable for its unity of aim. Nahum's object was to inspire his countrymen, the Jews, with the assurance that, however alarming their position might seem, exposed to the attacks of the mighty Assyrian, who had already carried away the ten tribes, yet that not only should the Assyrian (Sennacherib) fail in his attack on Jerusalem, but Nineveh, his own capital, be taken and his empire overthrown; and this, not by an arbitrary exercise of Jehovah's power, but for the iniquities of the city and its people.
Other commentaters agree - my own reading concurs. Buz has failed to convince me that this is end time prophecy in any sense no matter how much I squint. Hopefully others will find these commentaries interesting or useful.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2007 7:51 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 215 of 303 (376021)
01-10-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Buzsaw
01-10-2007 7:51 PM


Re: scholars
None of the scholars read 'earth' as Ninevah nor do they read 'Lebanon' as Ninevah. I don't either. I read it as 'the world'. "the earth is upheaved, at his presence, yea the world and all that dwell therein." seems in line with YHWH, but doesn't sound particularly prophetic, just a statement of fact. Everyone else, the scholars cited included reads it that way and I don't know how it can be read to mean anything else.
Its not likely your going to shift how you are reading this chapter and I don't think anyone is going to change how they are reading it. Hence my first sentence. I had difficulty finding anyone who agrees with your version of things that had any amount of authority (ie not random internet nutters, you know -those guys that like big colourful text with lots of underlining and stuff), though I don't doubt they exist.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2007 7:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 271 of 303 (377185)
01-15-2007 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Buzsaw
01-15-2007 11:10 AM


Re: So is that yes?
None of the major translators of the English Bible used the "and" prefix
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').

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 273 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2007 4:35 PM Modulous has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024