Editing Scripture

The verse: Rev. 13:8

Notice the difference between KJV & NKJV in contrast to the others...the KJ's end with the word "world" while the others end with the word "slaughtered / slain / killed".

The explanation for the difference as found in the NET note for this verse is:

The prepositional phrase "since the foundation of the world" is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, "the Lamb who was killed" (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase "since the foundation of the world" modifies the verb "written" (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase "written in the book of life since the foundation of the world" occurs with no ambiguity.

Hurrah for Rev. 17:8...but that is perfectly irrelevent, especially when the Greek concurs with the KJ's.

Let's look at the Greek:

Notice that the phrase in question, "from the foundation of the world", occurs exactly where KJV/NKJV presents it...after "slaughtered / slain". I realize that proximity often means next-to-nothing in Greek, but in this case, it is quite relevent. Notice that the NET note doesn't dismiss the grammatic possibility of the KJ readings, it just has determined that it, along with the other modern versions, has "deeper insight" into the text, even if it means linking together two phrases across a chasmic distance of chapters when there is a PERFECTLY DOCTRINALLY VIABLE option literally abutting the phrase in question.

I'm not here saying that Rev. 17:8 isn't viable in its own way...it certainly is. But what I am questioning is the credibility and sheer hhutspah of a textual committee (in this case, actually, many textual committees) to literally STRETCH for a distant possibility when a valid (and I think unquestionably correct one) is at hand. Before I make my case, let me assert that this isn't a Byzantine/Majority text bias-I use NASB as my preferred text...and so I am here disagreeing with it as well as the other NA/USB texts. But notice, this isn't really a Majority vs. NA issue...this is an EDITORIAL edict. For that reason I believe that this decision is also flagrantly inappropriate. But on to my evidence...

1 Pet. 1

17     If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth;
     18     knowing that you were not ¹redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers,
     19     but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
     20     For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared ²in these last times for the sake of you
     21     who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

¹Or ransomed   ²Lit at the end of the times

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Pe 1:17-21).

Acts 2

22     “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man ¹attested to you by God with ²miracles and wonders and ³signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—
     23     this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of ⁴godless men and put Him to death.

¹Or exhibited or accredited   ²Or works of power   ³Or attesting miracles

⁴Lit men without the Law; i.e. pagan

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ac 2:22-23).

Heb. 9

26     Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin ¹by the sacrifice of Himself.

¹Or by His sacrifice

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Heb 9:26).

The 1 Peter verse, in and of itself, is enough to corroborate the KJ's presentation of the text. It agrees in toto with the concept of the "slaying" being from the foundation of the world...whether or not the writing in the book was also.
Acts also indicates that the cross (and thus the slaying) was foreordained (clearly from before Creation).
Hebrews 9 indicates by implication that the suffering was "effectual" and "effected" from the foundation of the world in a spiritual sense (the only sense in which any of this is true), even though the "event" itself was manifested in its due season.
But these verses aren't all...though they do confirm the doctrinal validity of the KJ readings...and the Greek. Another verse from Hebrews ices this perspective perfectly:
Heb. 4

3     For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
“As I swore in My wrath,
They shall not enter My rest,”
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Heb 4:3).

I would venture that all participants on this forum recognize the Cross as one of His most important works. Ergo, He (the Lamb) was slain from the foundation of the world/earth.
To my way of thinking, the proximity, validity, and doctrinal certainty that effuses from the KJ versions of this verse are so clear and overwhelming, that only something like "editorial pride" can account for the decision to "paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa" in the way that the modern versions have done here. It takes something very much like hhutspah to feel comfortable to make a change that requires a stretch across four chapters when a perfectly true and right option literally lies right beside.
The reason I even bothered to post this here is that the Lexham text has concurred with these other modern versions. I thought that someone might like to give a shot at explaining the reasoning for this wholly unnecessary change.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Graham Criddle

Hi David

Interesting post, thank you.

I thought some commentaries might add something to this and so include some quotations below:

8b οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς [τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου] ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, “everyone whose name was not written in the book of life [of the Lamb destined to be slaughtered] since the creation of the world.” The syntax of this passage is ambiguous, and there are two quite different ways of understanding the meaning of this text. At first glance, it seems more natural, given the existing word order of the text, to connect the phrase ἀπὸ τῆς καταβολῆς κόσμου, “since the creation of the world,” with ἐσφαγμένου, “slain,” and to translate the passage so: “whose name has not been written in the book of life of the Lamb slaughtered from the foundation of the world” (AV; NIV; REB; Caird, 168; Mounce, 256; Sweet, 212; Harrington, 139). It is also grammatically possible to link the prepositional phrase ἀπὸ τῆς καταβολῆς κόσμου to γέγραπται, “written,” as it must be understood in the parallel passage in 17:8 (Beckwith, 638), and therefore to translate the passage “whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered” (RSV; NRSV; B. Weiss, p 747 Johannes-Apokalypse, 194). This interpretation is preferable since it is logically and theologically impossible to make sense of the statement that the Lamb “was slaughtered before the foundation of the world.” According to Acts 2:23, Jesus was “delivered up according to the deliberate plan and foreknowledge [τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει] of God,” and there is even a closer parallel in 1 Pet 1:19–20, which refers to “the precious blood of Christ, like a blameless and spotless lamb, known already before the world was made [προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου].” While it is possible to think of Christ as destined to die for the sins of the world, it is quite another thing to say that that he was slain before the creation of the world.

David E. Aune, vol. 52B, Word Biblical Commentary : Revelation 6-16, Word Biblical Commentary, 746-47 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002).

This then goes on to talk about the similarities between this verse and Revelation 17:8.

c. “The Lamb that was slain, from the foundation of the world.” How do we interpret these words? Should the phrase “from the foundation of the world” be taken with “slain” or “written”? The answer to this question lies in reading other passages that shed light on this matter. John says, “And the inhabitants of the earth will be astonished, they whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the earth” (17:8). Here he omits the reference to the slain Lamb and thus indicates that God’s elect were chosen in eternity. Paul also testifies that God chose his people in Christ before the creation of the world (Eph. 1:4). Having said that, we should note that God chose Christ for the task of redeeming his people before the world was created (1 Pet. 1:20). And this task implies that he eventually would be slain at the time God had appointed for him.

On balance, the evidence John supplies in 17:8 is telling, for there he connects the phrase “from the foundation of the world” with “written.” The objection can be raised that the phrase is too far removed from the verb in question. This objection may be valid, yet the fact remains that in John’s writing this phenomenon occurs often when he wishes to qualify a noun in greater detail. He explains the phrase “the book of life” with the modifiers “of the Lamb that was slain.” In short, the book of life with all the names of God’s people belongs to the slain Lamb of God. Here is a word of comfort for the saints on earth who experience the onslaughts of the evil one. Their names are recorded in the book of life and the Lamb who was slain on their behalf has purchased them to live with him eternally (5:9).

Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, vol. 20, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Book of Revelation, New Testament Commentary, 384-85 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001).

The last phrase, “from the foundation of the world,” might explain that the death of Christ was decreed before time began (“of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world”; so 1 Pet. 1:19ff.; cf. Assumption of Moses1:14, where Moses’ mediatorship was “prepared before the foundation of the world”). Or it might affirm a decree of reprobation that took place before creation: “whose names were not written in the book of life … before the foundation of the world.” The former translation is viable because the statement about the Lamb’s death is immediately followed by the precreation temporal expression. And it is unlikely that the concluding temporal clause goes with “written,” since twelve words separate them. If the phrase describes the decree of the Lamb’s death, it is complementary to 17:8, which strongly implies that the elect were written “in the book of life before the foundation of the world.”

G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation : A Commentary on the Greek Text, 702 (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999).

Graham

David Ames

That reading sure backs the Doctrine of Predestination!

I find it interesting that the KLV, NIV, DRV and the RV have the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. [For 12 versions that way]

But the ASV [the American version of the RV], has it the other way [for 7 versions that way]

Does it make any difference which version of the Bible that you study?

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190020#Comment_190020

I'm not going to comment either way...it's not important what i think on who is correct in their analysis, but I would like to say that I love this stuff...this type of conversation is thrilling to me...

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190027#Comment_190027

I'm not going to comment either way...it's not important what i think on who is correct in their analysis, but I would like to say that I love this stuff...this type of conversation is thrilling to me...

And when will the "OFF TOPIC" group show up? But while it is still here I would like to thank those that point out these topics.

They may not tell me how to do the research but they do get me deeper into my Logos library [And FORCE me to learn both the tool and the scripture]

Dave Hooton

The reason I even bothered to post this here is that the Lexham text has concurred with these other modern versions. I thought that someone might like to give a shot at explaining the reasoning for this wholly unnecessary change.

Having just promoted the LEB to #2 I think I'll demote it after this[:)]

Interesting passage, interesting justifications for not following the Greek word order. Even the "literal" ESV follows the modern trend whilst Young's Literal Translation lives up to its name! A Text Comparison also shows that the Byzantine GNT (2005) has the word order of the NA27 and makes it look like it added a couple of words (in case you misunderstood the last part, the NA27 is the one with the extra words[;)]).

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190034#Comment_190034

Very thought provoking discussion that does offer us a hand to guide us deeper into our resources!

It does seem to be an issue in large part of "new scholarship vs. old scholarship".

I'll throw in an excerpt here from Mounce's commentary on Revelation, he being a pretty noted Greek scholar as well; he agrees with the analysis of the OP:

The "creation of the world" refers to the creation of the visible order. It is mentioned ten times in the NT. Jesus speaks of a kingdom prepared since the creation of the world (Matt 25:34), and Paul of the believers’ election before the creation of the world (Eph 1:4). The problem in the immediate verse is not the meaning of the phrase but its place in the sentence. Was it the writing of believers’ names or the death of the Lamb that dates from the creation of the world? The RSV and many of the newer translations follow the first alternative. The faithful are guarded by their election (the writing of their names in the Lamb’s book of life) from being deceived by the pretensions of the Antichrist. This is said to have taken place at the creation of the world. Rev 17:8, a parallel verse, would support this interpretation. However, the premise that John must be absolutely consistent in his literary expression is questionable. There is no particular reason why he should be denied the freedom to use a given phrase in several ways. It is better in this case to follow the order of the Greek syntax and read, "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world."³⁹ That is, the death of Christ was a redemptive sacrifice decreed in the counsels of eternity.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190034#Comment_190034

Even the "literal" ESV follows the modern trend

Dave's comment caused me to look at the notes in the ESV Study Bible which state:

13:8 written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. Before creation and by grace alone, God chose individuals to be redeemed by Christ’s death (see Eph. 1:4–14; and note on Eph. 1:11). God’s registry of life appears in Ex. 32:32–33; Dan. 12:1; Luke 10:20; Rev. 3:5; 17:8; 20:15. Those not enrolled in the Lamb’s book blindly worship the beast and will be cast with it into the lake of fire. The parallel expression in 17:8 shows that “before the foundation of the world” is best taken to modify “written” rather than “slain” as in some translations.

Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible, 2481 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008).

So it was something they did consciously seemingly based on the similar expression in 17.8 as pointed out by the OP.

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190060#Comment_190060

Two things I noticed. First, not all modern translations use the phrase as a modifier of "written"...the ISV reads:

All those living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life belonging to the lamb that was slaughtered from the foundation of the world.

International standard version New Testament : Version 1.1. 2000 (Print on Demand ed.) (Re 13:8). Yorba Linda, CA: The Learning Foundation.

Second, I don't think it is nearly as cut and dry as the OP implies. R.L. Thomas has some comments that I thought were interesting (bold emphasis is mine):

The remainder of v. 8, ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (apo katabolēs kosmou, “from the foundation of the world”), occurs six other times in the NT: Matt. 13:35; 25:34; Luke 11:50; Heb. 4:3; 9:26; Rev. 17:8. As in a similar expression, πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (pro katabolēs kosmou, “before the foundation of the world”) (cf. John 17:24; Eph. 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20), κόσμος (kosmos, “world”) cannot be limited to the beginning of human history, but must refer to the founding of the whole visible order (Swete, Walvoord, Mounce). The connection of the phrase ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (apo katabolēs kosmou) with what precedes it is in question, however. Is it connected directly with γέγραπται (gegraptai), “the book of life written from the foundation of the world,” or with ἐσφαγμένου (esphagmenou), “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”?

The chief support for connecting it with esphagmenou is the verse’s word order. The phrase follows immediately after the participle.65 This compares with a twelve-word separation between the phrase and gegraptai (Mounce). On the other side, the chief argument for connecting the phrase with gegraptai is a parallel in 17:8 where that is the only connection possible. The same finite verb and the same phrase in that verse must have a direct connection because the verse has no word about the Lamb or His being slain (Swete, Lenski). Of course, in 13:8 John may be supplementing the thought of 17:8 with something different (Alford, Caird, Johnson), but 17:8 offers a rejoinder to the principal objection to the gegraptai connection. It has a seven-word separation between the phrase and gegraptai, thus showing that a contextual separation is no serious obstacle to its connection with gegraptai. Consistency of usage by the same author is the stronger consideration, so the sense “the book of life written from the foundation of the world” is the best solution. This sense fits into the immediate context better too. It advances the argument that continues through 13:10 by implying that the elect are predestined to refrain from beast-worship and therefore suffer persecution. This reassures them in the midst of their powerlessness against the beast, they are still in the keeping providence of God, having been there since the foundation of the world (Ladd).

Thomas, R. L. (1995). Revelation 8-22: An exegetical commentary (165–166). Chicago: Moody Publishers.

EDIT: Why doesn't the indent show up when I post? I tried to indent the quotes to make them more readable. The indent shows up when I am editing, but not in the final post.

Pastor Johnny

From Robert Thomas' commentary on Revelation (available from Logos):

Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 165-66 (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1995).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190064#Comment_190064

EDIT: Why doesn't the indent show up when I post? I tried to indent the quotes to make them more readable. The indent shows up when I am editing, but not in the final post.

Tell me about it...odd that a cut-and-paste from the Logos software doesn't jibe with the Logos forum. It has to do (on some level) with the forced double-space that the forum's "word processor" inserts with each hard return. Also, it appears as if the forum reads copied text almost as if a picture rather than as text...it completely ignores the formatting. I had to edit my OP about a dozen times to get something legible. All a result of the decision to "make-do" with "word processor lite" options. The end user is thus forced into all manner of jury-rigged MacGyvering just to get something as basic as a note to have the desired presentation qualities. Irritating.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190246#Comment_190246

EDIT: Why doesn't the indent show up when I post? I tried to indent the quotes to make them more readable. The indent shows up when I am editing, but not in the final post.

The forum software's indent feature doesn't work. I know and can edit the HTML source directly, and I can't even get it to stick. You can however insert non-breaking spaces at the beginnings. The HTML code is   (have to include the semicolon). Click the HTML button on the toolbar and edit the HTML code directly.

Tell me about it...odd that a cut-and-paste from the Logos software doesn't jibe with the Logos forum. It has to do (on some level) with the forced double-space that the forum's "word processor" inserts with each hard return. Also, it appears as if the forum reads copied text almost as if a picture rather than as text...it completely ignores the formatting. I had to edit my OP about a dozen times to get something legible. All a result of the decision to "make-do" with "word processor lite" options. The end user is thus forced into all manner of jury-rigged MacGyvering just to get something as basic as a note to have the desired presentation qualities. Irritating.

Yes, the forum software is irritating and buggy. However, you can usually get better results on pasting into it from some other software if you click the "Paste from Word" icon (clipboard with the W on it), regardless of whether it's actually Word you're pasting in from. Paste your content into that popup window, then click Insert. It cleans up the HTML for you before pasting in. Word is notorious for generating pretty ugly HTML code when passing along to other apps via the clipboard, and the forum software can't deal with it without cleaning it up first.

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190249#Comment_190249

I knew there was a reason why I iked my JB Phillips

13:6-8 -
So it poured out blasphemies against God, blaspheming his
name and his dwelling place and those who live in Heaven.
Moreover, it was permitted to make war upon the saints
and to conquer them; the authority given to it extended
over every tribe and people and language and nation. All
the inhabitants of the earth will worship it - all those
whose names have not been written in the book of life
which belongs to the Lamb slain from the foundation of
the world.

Its a very interesting question, tbh I hadnt noticed it before, am watching the thread with intereest

Jerry M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190265#Comment_190265

It seems to me that the non-elect are the subject throughout the verse. The Lamb is only introduced as the one who possesses the book by virtue of His sacrifice. IMO then, the grammar points the phrase "from the foundation of the world" back to the timing of the writing. I don't think the timing of the crucifixion is what the verse is about, but the foreknowledge of God in the destiny of men. If anything, the New Testament seeks to emphasize the historical reality of the cross, with the rise of gnosticism. Perhaps it could even be argued that it is the whole package of both the foreknowledge of God concerning the elect/non-elect and the sacrifice of Christ is what is included in the meaning of "from the foundation of the world".

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190296#Comment_190296

It seems to me that the non-elect are the subject throughout the verse. The Lamb is only introduced as the one who possesses the book by virtue of His sacrifice. IMO then, the grammar points the phrase "from the foundation of the world" back to the timing of the writing. I don't think the timing of the crucifixion is what the verse is about, but the foreknowledge of God in the destiny of men. If anything, the New Testament seeks to emphasize the historical reality of the cross, with the rise of gnosticism. Perhaps it could even be argued that it is the whole package of both the foreknowledge of God concerning the elect/non-elect and the sacrifice of Christ is what is included in the meaning of "from the foundation of the world".

NOBODY agrees that the grammar points to "foundation" and "world" being connected...they only say that since it is POSSIBLE (though being a literal stretch), and Rev. 17 has the same language, they DECIDE that that option is the right one. Grammar isn't the reason for going with the R17 "option".

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190043#Comment_190043

The "creation of the world" refers to the creation of the visible order. It is mentioned ten times in the NT. Jesus speaks of a kingdom prepared since the creation of the world (Matt 25:34), and Paul of the believers’ election before the creation of the world (Eph 1:4). The problem in the immediate verse is not the meaning of the phrase but its place in the sentence. Was it the writing of believers’ names or the death of the Lamb that dates from the creation of the world? The RSV and many of the newer translations follow the first alternative. The faithful are guarded by their election (the writing of their names in the Lamb’s book of life) from being deceived by the pretensions of the Antichrist. This is said to have taken place at the creation of the world. Rev 17:8, a parallel verse, would support this interpretation. However, the premise that John must be absolutely consistent in his literary expression is questionable. There is no particular reason why he should be denied the freedom to use a given phrase in several ways. It is better in this case to follow the order of the Greek syntax and read, "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world."³⁹ That is, the death of Christ was a redemptive sacrifice decreed in the counsels of eternity.

Thanks, Dominic, for this post and quote.

I didn't bother quoting any commentaries (though I've got scads of them) because I frankly think the evidence speaks for itself. But in "dark" of the avalanche of quotations tossed out from those having the "modern" view, it is nice to have a little light shed on the subject. Mounce is dead-on accurate and correct, particularly in his comment that you highlighted: the premise that John must be absolutely consistent in his literary expression is questionable.

I'll be frank about this goofy notion of "consistency of literary expression"...it's a crock of utter nonsense. It is one of the fantasies that allow textual critics to tie millstones around their necks and toss them overboard. Of such drivel was Wellhausen's "documentary hypothesis" foisted on an unsuspecting public. That absurdity has been well proven to be the sham of foolishness that logic and faith insist it is...but that's a whole other issue.

Again, as I brought up in my OP, the verse that ICES this whole discussion is Heb. 4:3--HIS WORKS WERE FINISHED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. <---note the period

That obviously included His sacrifice...and so John's R13 statement that He was "slain from the foundation of the world" is a verifiable verity--unquestionable truth. To put it simply--there is NO REASON TO STRETCH all the way to R17 to explain the KJ choice. The NEAREST CHOICE is a VALID CHOICE...and if one of the most commonly voiced precepts of interpretation and problem solving (simplest is best) is followed, the KJ versions are best and correct. I'm wondering how anyone can even justify trying to stretch to the other option.

Also, in all the talk the commentators made about the "great truth" that is revealed in the "modern" Rev. 17 understanding of Rev. 13, they curiously seem to overlook the fact that they are in the same motion eviscerating one of the most profound and important teachings/revelations in the entire Bible, which is Y'shuua's death, effective from the get-go. To my way of thinking, it isn't just curious, it's bizarre. Making Rev. 13 into a copy of Rev. 17 doesn't UNDO that truth, because Heb. 4 makes it a 100% lock. But it does take a crystal clear expression of that truth and trades it for a mere repetition of another truth.

I'll back off on saying more, for now...seeing as that could begin to verge from forum decorum.

I just want to point out that while Ron and Johnny both quoted a commentary by Robert Thomas that mentions Heb. 4:3, NONE of the commentaries that attempts to substantiate the R17 "option" actually quote it. If they did, they would cripple the argument for choosing to align R13 with R17.

To illustrate this, the whole "modern" take on this seems to me a bit like running off to have a relationship with a woman in the next town because "you just get along so well" with her when all along you have a woman "by your side" that you're suppose to be in relationship with. Yeah, it's just like that.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190043#Comment_190043

It does seem to be an issue in large part of "new scholarship vs. old scholarship"

I searched my library and couldn't find any relevant old scholarship i.e. before the Great Schism. Now if they gave me some of the Anglo-Saxon or Church Slavonic or Old Gothic I might have been able to back you up.

Any for the individual who wanted a call from the forum police ... this topic is OT (over-time?)[;)]

Sam McCloud

Hurrah for Rev. 17:8...but that is perfectly irrelevent, especially when the Greek concurs with the KJ's.

I know where you are coming from with this statement, but there are two things that stand out in the forefront of my thinking on this topic.

First I notice that there are several references to other books in the Bible that might seem to give more relevance to one side or the other, and they seem to be good arguments (at the very least they are all completely truthful statements), but what is the best way to tell what word order is best in this situation concerning this particular author? I think that examples from his own writing style (in Revelation and possibly other books as well) would make the strongest case. That may be why that Rev 17:8 is so commonly referred to in making the case for the modern translations.

Secondly I have to admit that I'm no Greek scholar or scholar at all on any academic level although I do like to think deeply about Scripture and read and study. There is something here that seems to some degree logical to me and I don't know if any of you guys had pointed it out yet (I didn't read every post but I think I will when I have more time and I'm going to research this further). But anyway my second point is this: Since there is such obvious ambiguity concerning which translation is the most accurate (at least from a Greek grammar perspective), and since both translations are accurate doctrinally when looking at various verses in Revelation and other books, maybe John intended the ideas presented by both translations to be assumed when he wrote that passage initially.

Our names were predetermined by God before the world began. I know the lamb was not literally, physically slain before the world began but the undeniable, absolute reality was present as far as God is concerned before the beginning of this world. Psalm 22 has a very strong impact on me emotionally when I consider that our Lord had such a vivid knowledge of his suffering and death from all eternity before his great sacrifice and He will always have that knowledge and unfading memory. We have absolutely no concept of the magnitude of what has been given us in Jesus Christ, and what he still gives us every day in his continuing intercession as high priest. Heb 7:25

Juanita

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191029#Comment_191029

this topic is OT (over-time?)

Long live OT; some of the best trick plays in Spartan football have occurred in OT. Thanks for the wordplay!

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191175#Comment_191175

I keep getting the feeling that the Rev. 17 advocates want the verse in question to be about THEM rather than be about HIM.

Alan Macgregor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191164#Comment_191164

maybe John intended the ideas presented by both translations to be assumed when he wrote that passage initially.

I think you have the rights of it here, Sam. It's not a matter of either or but both and. I think that bivalence and nuance is something that John uses, not because he is being obtuse but because he is being perspicuous. He wants us to understand clearly what he is saying.

Another example of John's bivalent use of language is to be found in John 1:5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. What does κατέλαβεν mean here? Is it about understanding or overcoming? The English versions come down on either side and the context would allow either, but I think that the context allows both. So how about rendering it this way? - And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not mastered it. Using this word you get the nuances of both meanings in the one English word. (Mind you, it's not often that a bivalent English word is available for a bivalent Greek word.)

BTW thanks for raising this topic, David. Having the resources and tools of Logos means that more people are encouraged to delve into scripture themselves, rather than just accepting what a particular English version says. It allows people to do what the Reformers wanted - to handle the Word of God in its original languages for themselves. (It's why the first Scottish grammar schools from 1560 until the early 17th century taught not only Latin and Greek but Hebrew too. John Knox and others wanted people to be able to read the scriptures in the original tongues.)

Sam McCloud

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191195#Comment_191195

Another example of John's bivalent use of language is to be found in John 1:5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. What does κατέλαβεν mean here? Is it about understanding or overcoming? The English versions come down on either side and the context would allow either, but I think that the context allows both.

I listened to a great sermon preached by Don Carson on this very fact and he agrees with you 100% and so do I. I had noticed this about the word κατέλαβεν before I heard him preach on it and had thought that any English translation should include both possibilities for this word, since after all we English speakers don't have the liberty of figuring out the intention of the original language unless we can read Greek or have Logos... but I have wondered for a while now why every translation seems to just pick one or the other.

I also think that there should be a theology discussion category in these forums and these types of topics should be discussed more frequently. We have great tools in Logos and we can sharpen each other by encouraging individual study and group discussion. Proverbs 27:17

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191290#Comment_191290

also think that there should be a theology discussion category in these forums and these types of topics should be discussed more frequently. We have great tools in Logos and we can sharpen each other by encouraging individual study and group discussion. Proverbs 27:17

I would also like to see that. Unfortunately, we seem to have a few "Hobby-Horse Theologians" in these forums who must think their mission in life is to "correct" the theology of anyone who does no walk in lock-step with them. In accomplishing this mission, they tend to rapidly become abusive and insulting. This tendency takes away any benefit of such a forum.

Sam McCloud

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191362#Comment_191362

I would also like to see that. Unfortunately, we seem to have a few "Hobby-Horse Theologians" in these forums who must think their mission in life is to "correct" the theology of anyone who does no walk in lock-step with them. In accomplishing this mission, they tend to rapidly become abusive and insulting. This tendency takes away any benefit of such a forum.

I understand completely what you mean but I for one would be willing to overlook some abusive posts if I had the opportunity to discuss theology with at least some sane, rational, godly people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion (whether or not it is entirely accurate) and the real world includes hateful individuals along with people who are more reasonable but that does not excuse us from going out into the world and doing God's work. If all the discussion resulted in anyone coming to a better understanding of the truth then it would be worth enduring the angry, argumentative, insulting posts to some degree. I don't see why forum MVPs couldn't be given the opportunity to do some moderation possibly, not to moderate according to their beliefs but they could report abusive individuals or report abusive posts. Eventually you could weed out to some degree the habitually belligerent people. Discussion is such a helpful, necessary thing to provide encouragement and stimulation of the mind and to promote a more zealous pursuit of the truth. I just think that when being confronted with a difficult situation and giving up because of the problem is allowing evil to triumph and we are supposed to be firmly against that. Also, the more thinly skinned people might decide to not participate if nothing else.

On top of all this theological discussions are already occurring I don't see why there couldn't be a designated category for them.

Paul N

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191362#Comment_191362

A few too many theologians would be excellent chess players; they've got all their moves memorized.

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191509#Comment_191509

Discussion is such a helpful, necessary thing to provide encouragement and stimulation of the mind and to promote a more zealous pursuit of the truth.

I agree and and if we can combine that with developing skills and techniques that help us to use Logos to pursue truth then there would be some real benefits. The thread about how to use the SBL to identify textual variants has made me even more aware of how powerful Logos is and how little I know about using it!

Sam McCloud

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191520#Comment_191520

A few too many theologians would be excellent chess players; they've got all their moves memorized.

That's exactly why I don't want to just "memorize moves" without pursuing a more complete understanding of God. It is too easy sometimes to approach Biblical study from a completely scholarly perspective and that perspective is of course absolutely necessary and important but it can't be done apart from guidance from the Holy Spirit and it should be done solely for the purpose of drawing closer to God and for drawing his people closer together under Him, not for the sake of arguing and proving who knows more about such and such doctrine and the correct interpretation of this verse or that verse and so forth and so on. There are no denominations ultimately (as far as God is concerned) and there isn't a different God for every theological perspective. It's just Him and His people, and those who end up in outer darkness. We shouldn't feel alienated from each other, we are all Christians. I love other Christians and I seek to fellowship with them as Christ intended. Theological discussion should always be for the purpose of drawing people together not dividing them.

This is why I enjoy discussion, because someone sometime will make a point that I hadn't considered before, or point out a fact that I had never been exposed to. That point or fact will usually make me want to do research and discover all that I can about it. Then I will inadvertently stumble on one or more other truths along the way. We all need inspiration at times and we are supposed to at least try to encourage one another. I refuse to believe that there aren't more people on these forums who feel the same way about this. I personally have a strong desire for fellowship and I desire that fellowship to be centered in God's Word. What better place to find such fellowship than on a forum that exists to support users of a program which has the primary function of Bible study? Some may say, "well Logos is software and the forum is for the software not the Bible study".... I would say to that, the life of the software is the Bible study and the life of the Bible study is God in the people who are using the software to do the Bible study. I think there is huge opportunity here to push more life into this forum through encouragement of Bible study approached with an attitude of brotherly love and with an ultimate focus on Christ.

We aren't just customers of a software company, we are Christian brothers and sisters.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191509#Comment_191509

I don't see why forum MVPs couldn't be given the opportunity to do some moderation possibly, not to moderate according to their beliefs but they could report abusive individuals or report abusive posts.

Unfortunately, the star under a person's avatar seems to incite anger in some posters, and some attempts at moderation by MVPs have actually escalated abusive remarks. I personally would not want to become a forum moderator.

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191554#Comment_191554

It is too easy sometimes to approach Biblical study from a completely scholarly perspective and that perspective is of course absolutely necessary and important but it can't be done apart from guidance from the Holy Spirit

This is a great observation I believe one of the challenges of our age is that scholarly equates to scientific, science dismisses the supernatural and the Holy Spirit is supernatural. This has caused a divide in Christian Scholarship and it seems that some of today's Bible Scholars are focused on having a 'scientific approach' in order to be accepted by Scholars in other Disciplines. We do need to remember that prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit are as much a part of studying the Bible as a knowledge of Hebrew or Greek Grammar.

Some may say, "well Logos is software and the forum is for the software not the Bible study"

I think this is sometimes seen as the easy way to stop a discussion that has lost its way. This is a difficult area though as I think that it is often the less Logos focused threads that inspire me to use Logos to answer the question or explore an issue. It also seems to be a fact of forums that a rivalry will develop between specific individuals and that this will cloud and destroy certain discussions.

As a question for consideration, I wonder how often we fail to come back to the forum with an interesting search or reference to a resource or a visual filter i.e. do we come back with the fish or do we come back and teach others to fish. Just a thought but maybe in the heat of the debate an effort could be made not only to educate each other in the finer points of Theology but also to teach each other how to use Logos.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191657#Comment_191657

It is too easy sometimes to approach Biblical study from a completely scholarly perspective and that perspective is of course absolutely necessary and important but it can't be done apart from guidance from the Holy Spirit

We do need to remember that prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit are as much a part of studying the Bible as a knowledge of Hebrew or Greek Grammar.

A superb observation

Just a thought but maybe in the heat of the debate an effort could be made not only to educate each other in the finer points of Theology but also to teach each other how to use Logos.

That could even keep an errant thread within forum guidelines.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191554#Comment_191554

We aren't just customers of a software company, we are Christian brothers and sisters.

Sam, I just wanted to tell you I appreciate your comments in this thread. You have made it both enjoyable and enlightening.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191509#Comment_191509

I don't see why forum MVPs couldn't be given the opportunity to do some moderation possibly, not to moderate according to their beliefs but they could report abusive individuals or report abusive posts. Eventually you could weed out to some degree the habitually belligerent people.

MVPs can and do report threads and posters who have become abusive to Logos. Some threads have been locked in the past when they really got out of hand, and some posts have been deleted. But in general Logos prefers not to censor anyone (except obvious spammers and actual libel -- which by the way I've never seen here). They've publicized the guidelines and they trust us to stay within them generally, and at least not to be ugly to each other when we meander into theological discussions occasionally. I have been edified by some of the discussions and I wish we could have a specific place on the forum for them.

It is awkward being an MVP when a thread moves into the area of personal attacks, because if we speak up and remind people of the forum guidelines, we often get accused of shutting things down only because the theology expressed differs from our own, or of being able to get away with things ourselves that other forum participants can't. I personally have decided not to invoke the "guidelines" anymore because it never seems to be helpful. If something isn't abusive, I let it go, and if it's abusive, I let Logos deal with it.

By the way, we have not been given the explicit role by Logos as forum moderators. We are only supposed to keep posting as we normally would have before receiving the MVP designation. It simply means Logos has recognized that we tend to enjoy answering people's questions about the software, and our advice tends to be helpful. If we slip up and say or do things that are not in keeping with Christian behavior on a public forum, please be gentle with us. Remind us of the guidelines if you must, but do so with love and forgiveness. We are only human too. It is a great privilege and blessing being able to participate in these forums with all of you brothers and sisters, such an amazing community.

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191805#Comment_191805

By the way, we have not been given the explicit role by Logos as forum moderators. We are only supposed to keep posting as we normally would have before receiving the MVP designation. It simply means Logos has recognized that we tend to enjoy answering people's questions about the software, and our advice tends to be helpful. If we slip up and say or do things that are not in keeping with Christian behavior on a public forum, please be gentle with us. Remind us of the guidelines if you must, but do so with love and forgiveness. We are only human too. It is a great privilege and blessing being able to participate in these forums with all of you brothers and sisters, such an amazing community.

I know it doesn't be know it doesn't belong there; but I'm awefully tempted to put this paragraph on Logos Speaks under the heading: What's an MVP?

Well said Rosie!

Jerry M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191805#Comment_191805

if we speak up and remind people of the forum guidelines, we often get accused of shutting things down

Yes, and it reminds me of 1 Cor 4:12-13 When we are reviled, we bless". I for one appreciate you and all the help I have gotten from MVP's. I view it as a legitimate ministry to the body of Christ.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/191554#Comment_191554

A few too many theologians would be excellent chess players; they've got all their moves memorized.

That's exactly why I don't want to just "memorize moves" without pursuing a more complete understanding of God. It is too easy sometimes to approach Biblical study from a completely scholarly perspective and that perspective is of course absolutely necessary and important but it can't be done apart from guidance from the Holy Spirit and it should be done solely for the purpose of drawing closer to God and for drawing his people closer together under Him, not for the sake of arguing and proving who knows more about such and such doctrine and the correct interpretation of this verse or that verse and so forth and so on. There are no denominations ultimately (as far as God is concerned) and there isn't a different God for every theological perspective. It's just Him and His people, and those who end up in outer darkness. We shouldn't feel alienated from each other, we are all Christians. I love other Christians and I seek to fellowship with them as Christ intended. Theological discussion should always be for the purpose of drawing people together not dividing them.

This is why I enjoy discussion, because someone sometime will make a point that I hadn't considered before, or point out a fact that I had never been exposed to. That point or fact will usually make me want to do research and discover all that I can about it. Then I will inadvertently stumble on one or more other truths along the way. We all need inspiration at times and we are supposed to at least try to encourage one another. I refuse to believe that there aren't more people on these forums who feel the same way about this. I personally have a strong desire for fellowship and I desire that fellowship to be centered in God's Word. What better place to find such fellowship than on a forum that exists to support users of a program which has the primary function of Bible study? Some may say, "well Logos is software and the forum is for the software not the Bible study".... I would say to that, the life of the software is the Bible study and the life of the Bible study is God in the people who are using the software to do the Bible study. I think there is huge opportunity here to push more life into this forum through encouragement of Bible study approached with an attitude of brotherly love and with an ultimate focus on Christ.

We aren't just customers of a software company, we are Christian brothers and sisters.

Samuel!

Peace to you! And ! Always Joy!

I am truly grateful for such a well-written post. You echo my sentiments exactly. We should be able - with great respect for one another - be able, indeed, to discuss various matters !!!

Hoping to see a Forum one of these days on General Forum Discussion!

*smile*

Blessings!

Abi Gail

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192144#Comment_192144

Hoping to see a Forum one of these days on General Forum Discussion!

"I Second That Emotion" [:D]