Comment On Current Debate

[Invicta]

I perceived how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth except the Scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue.

William Tyndale

No complicated grammar needed.  The scriptures are plain to those who read them, the plouhgboy as well as the king of England

[Alimantado]

I perceived how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth except the Scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue.

William Tyndale

No complicated grammar needed.  The scriptures are plain to those who read them, the plouhgboy as well as the king of England

See the responses on page one of this thread, from when Cov made the same point three months ago.

[Invicta]

See the responses on page one of this thread, from when Cov made the same point three months ago.

Thanks for reminding me. 

[Covenanter]

I perceived how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth except the Scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue.

William Tyndale

No complicated grammar needed.  The scriptures are plain to those who read them, the plouhgboy as well as the king of England

I'm not sure the Scriptures have been plain to the kings of England ..... 

[Invicta]

I'm not sure the Scriptures have been plain to the kings of England ..... 

They would have been if they took the oportunity to read them

[Covenanter]

I'm not sure the Scriptures have been plain to the kings of England ..... 

They would have been if they took the oportunity to read them

Not just read - Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

[Invicta]

 

Not just read - Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

They would have to read to understand.

[Genevanpreacher]

 

Not just read - Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this *PROPHECY and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

*That's an important word there to consider. It's not 'just the facts Ma'am' kinda stuff, but 'pictures' that speak as facts.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Genevanpreacher

[MountainChristian]

For a poorly educated man like myself, Pastor Scott seems to go out of his way to grow my understanding of English to improve my understanding of the Holy Bible.  How does understanding the English language make Pastor Scott wrong? Did "AND" at the beginning of a sentence prove his interruption incorrect? I'm missing something, could one of you point it out.

 

[Invicta]

For a poorly educated man like myself, Pastor Scott seems to go out of his way to grow my understanding of English to improve my understanding of the Holy Bible.  How does understanding the English language make Pastor Scott wrong? Did "AND" at the beginning of a sentence prove his interruption incorrect? I'm missing something, could one of you point it out.

 

English grammar has no doubt developed since 1611, as well as spelling and the use of words.  For instance there was neither J or U in the alphabet.   It was probably perfectly correct English in those days to start a sentence with And.  

[Covenanter]

For a poorly educated man like myself, Pastor Scott seems to go out of his way to grow my understanding of English to improve my understanding of the Holy Bible.  How does understanding the English language make Pastor Scott wrong? Did "AND" at the beginning of a sentence prove his interruption incorrect? I'm missing something, could one of you point it out.

 

The problem comes when grammatical considerations are used to impose an interpretation on Scripture. Scripture says 70 weeks - 490 years - but Bro. Scott uses grammar to interpret the simple & obvious meaning - which is the 70th week immediately following the 69th week - to insert hundreds of weeks - thousands of years into the passage. 

"And" may simply link equal words with no time sequence - e.g

"I want fish and chips, and tomato ketchup, and a pickled onion.

Or and may imply a sequence - usually linking clauses containing a verb - e.g.

"Go to the shop and buy bread and milk and come straight home." 

And may be used to introduce a new but usually related thought - e.g.

"And after tea I will help you with your homework."

I strongly recommend reading the Scripture for the clear meaning before trying to interpret. We need, of course, to consider the context, spiritual application, & the way the NT writers use the OT. 

 

 

 

 

[Covenanter]

“And” does not imply a sequence of events, but normally refers to related events which may be sequential or concurrent.

Bro Scott & I have sought to explain the significance of the "ands" in Dan. 9:24-27. We partly agree but profoundly disagree. I'll try to explain further in a passage which (I hope) is not controversial. 

The Greek words translated "and" have many other meanings according to the context. 

And that's before we start on the Hebrew. Thanks to the Blue Letter Bible with Strong's numbering. 

For example - Two different words are translated "and" in Mark 10:32-36

"de" which opens verses 32 & 36 The KJV translates Strongs G1161 in the following manner: but (1,237x), and (934x), now (166x),then (132x), also (18x), yet (16x), yea (13x), so (13x), moreover (13x), nevertheless (11x), for (4x),even (3x), misc (10x), not tr (300x).

Note - not translated 300 times.   

"kai" is used is most occurrences - The KJV translates Strongs G2532 in the following manner: and (8,173x), also (514x), even (108x),both (43x), then (20x), so (18x), likewise (13x), not tr. (350x), misc (31x), vr and (1x).

Note - not translated 350 times.

Note the sequence of “ands” - beginning with a new paragraph - Mark 10:

 

32 And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, 33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: 34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again. 35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. 36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?

 

I'm not sure that the Holy Spirit follows the same rules of grammar that you & I were taught. My school was founded in 1553, 58 years before the KJV was completed. I would have been in trouble for all those “ands” especially beginning paragraphs & sentences with “and.” Some are concurrent, some sequential, &, in v. 35, “and” bears no relation to what Jesus has been saying.

If I were “correcting” it as a grammatical exercise, I would write:

 

32 They were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them. They were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. So he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, 33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles. 34 They shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: but the third day he shall rise again. 

35 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. 36 He said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?

[Covenanter]

So, be careful how you analyse Scripture - read & understand & obey what is written. The analysis of the text has been done for us in providing the translation. 

IMO Bro Scott has lost the meaning of Dan. 9:24-27 by over-analysis. 

 

[MountainChristian]

Mark 10:35 ¶ And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. That is how it is written. ¶ Pilcrow starts a new paragraph.

[MountainChristian]

The word Flood translated from sheteph

1. Psalm 32:6 For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods (sheteph)  of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him.

2. Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood (sheteph), and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

3. Dan 11:22 And with the arms of a flood (sheteph) shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

4. Nah 1:8 But with an overrunning flood (sheteph) he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies.

5. Job 38:25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters (sheteph), or a way for the lightning of thunder;

6. Pro 27:4 Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous (sheteph); but who is able to stand before envy?

The word Flood translated from nahar.

Dan 10:4 And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river (nahar), which is Hiddekel;

Isa 59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a river (nahar), the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

nahar is used 120 times

Being two different words and a word that Daniel himself used in chapter 10, could you two men please explain why you reject the idea it is water and accept the idea it is people? Also how much would it change your doctrines if its water and not people?