A FEW QUESTIONS FOR millianialists

[Wormwood]

Notice carefully verse 2: It says that haSatan (the Enemy), the slanderer, was the original snake, a reptile! The word "dragon" is an English transliteration of the Greek word "drakonta" or "drakoon" ("oo" for omega), meaning "reptile or lizard!" Remember that the ORIGINAL snake didn't have to go on his belly at first! That was the result of God's curse on him! This creature was more like a small sauropod or theropod dinosaur with legs, closer to a "lizard!"

Retro,

I think you are avoiding the point I was making. First, your charge against horsecamp was that the Greek word drakon does not mean "dragon" as we think of it but merely "lizard/reptile." It's clear your assertion here is that this is nothing more than perhaps a pre-fall description of a snake that is depicted in Genesis. This is simply not the case. Drakon in the Greek refers not merely to a snake, but specifically something more like a mythical large sea-monster type of serpent. Not a basic lizard or a traditional snake (ophis). Our conception of a dragon is not far off from what the Greeks would have imagined with this word. Moreover, Satan is also pictured as Leviathan (large sea monster) in the OT. So, the idea that there is no symbolism here in Revelation or that drakon is basically synonymous with ophis is incorrect. That was my original point. Yes, a drakon is a snake/reptile but a snake/reptile is not the same as a drakon anymore than a snake is the same as loch ness. It is incorrect that the morphology of drakon has developed over time to only recently be thought of as a mythical creature/dragon. It was viewed this well prior to when Revelation was penned. The author of Revelation intended to put an image of a giant monstrous serpent in our mind (like the dragons in books we have today) The image of a dragon we have today is not very different from what people would have imagined in the first century. Your charge against horsecamp is incorrect.

The myth of the terrible monster that opposes the powers of light or deities of life and can only be overcome with effort, is widespread throughout the ancient world (the Pythian dragon, which Apollo kills; Typhon, whom Zeus renders incapable of battle and who falls into Tartarus [Hesiod Th. 820–80]; additional oriental myths in Gunkel).
-The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament

Next, Satan, according to biblical tradition, is a fallen angel. He is not a literal snake/lizard. Rather, snakes were common metaphors for evil because of the venom in their mouths and they way they spring upon the unsuspecting. He is a spiritual being, not a carnal one. Certainly spiritual realities influence physical realities and I have no doubt that God did cause snakes to slither on their bellies after the fall as a physical reflection of a spiritual reality. However, to say that Satan is actually a physical snake roaming around the earth (apparently in the sea currently) who will jump out of the ocean as a giant sea monster with ten horns and seven heads is utter nonsense. It is just as nonsensical to say that the city of Babylon in Revelation is actually a prostitute riding a beast and drinking the blood of God's people. These are images that make profound statements about the powers of the world and how they have aligned themselves. They are metaphors, and not to be taken a literal declarations. I would encourage you to read other apocalyptic literature to understand the nature of this type of writing and its symbolism.

 

[horsecamp]

So you are saying satan is a dragon and God is a burning bush and satan is a snake ?????????????

satan appeared as a snake to adam and eve God appeared to moses to be in the form of a burning bush ..

and satan the dragon is revelations picture language

That sounds like dispensationalism, which is not the same as millennialism.

its a form of it..

they believe in a earthly rule by christ for a thousand years in which all the jews will be converte

 

[veteran]

Eve did not eat an apple either.

is satan a literal dragon IN THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER ? and can he literaly be bound with a chain? and does hell REALLY have a literal key to lock it?
and if these things are picture language why then would you think a thousand years would not also be picture language..

ALSO WHY IS THER NO MENTION ANY WHERE ELSE IN SCRIPTURE OF A LITERAL THOUSAND YEAR REIGN BY CHRIST ?
CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT IMPORTANT WOULD BE MENTIONED AND TOLD ABOUT..ELSE WHERE ..WHY IS IT NOT?

ALSO WHAT DO YOU THINK JOHN WAS TELLING US ABOUT THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS .. WHEN HE SAID HE SAW THESE VISIONS WHILE IN THE SPIRIT ?


REV 20 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.



EVER HEAR HANDLES MESSIAH? AND HE SHALL REIGN FOR -------- EVER AND EVER ..

HUGE difference between symbolic titles for Satan as "that old serpent" and "dragon" vs. the giving of a specific prophetic time associated with prophetic events. The two subjects are not even closely comparable.

Even when a prophetic time like in Ezekiel, is given in days to represent years, God's Word defines it so for the specific Scripture prophecy. Elsewhere, if the prophecy is NOT given in that manner, then it is a literal period of time. Otherwise ALL... of the timeline prophecies written in God's Word would have failed, and what He said He would do within those timelines would have remained.... symbolic and never literally... happen. That... is what the doctrine of mysticism does, tries to convert the timelines in God's Word into symbolic language, creating confusion of the times and the seasons so one will not be an able watchman per God's command. That's essentially what the followers of paganism do.

 

[Wormwood]

Prophetic literature and apocalyptic literature are not read the same way vet. An apocalyptic vision is not the same as a prophetic utterance.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Wormwood.

Retro,

I think you are avoiding the point I was making. First, your charge against horsecamp was that the Greek word drakon does not mean "dragon" as we think of it but merely "lizard/reptile." It's clear your assertion here is that this is nothing more than perhaps a pre-fall description of a snake that is depicted in Genesis. This is simply not the case. Drakon in the Greek refers not merely to a snake, but specifically something more like a mythical large sea-monster type of serpent. Not a basic lizard or a traditional snake (ophis). Our conception of a dragon is not far off from what the Greeks would have imagined with this word. Moreover, Satan is also pictured as Leviathan (large sea monster) in the OT. So, the idea that there is no symbolism here in Revelation or that drakon is basically synonymous with ophis is incorrect. That was my original point. Yes, a drakon is a snake/reptile but a snake/reptile is not the same as a drakon anymore than a snake is the same as loch ness. It is incorrect that the morphology of drakon has developed over time to only recently be thought of as a mythical creature/dragon. It was viewed this well prior to when Revelation was penned. The author of Revelation intended to put an image of a giant monstrous serpent in our mind (like the dragons in books we have today) The image of a dragon we have today is not very different from what people would have imagined in the first century. Your charge against horsecamp is incorrect.


Next, Satan, according to biblical tradition, is a fallen angel. He is not a literal snake/lizard. Rather, snakes were common metaphors for evil because of the venom in their mouths and they way they spring upon the unsuspecting. He is a spiritual being, not a carnal one. Certainly spiritual realities influence physical realities and I have no doubt that God did cause snakes to slither on their bellies after the fall as a physical reflection of a spiritual reality. However, to say that Satan is actually a physical snake roaming around the earth (apparently in the sea currently) who will jump out of the ocean as a giant sea monster with ten horns and seven heads is utter nonsense. It is just as nonsensical to say that the city of Babylon in Revelation is actually a prostitute riding a beast and drinking the blood of God's people. These are images that make profound statements about the powers of the world and how they have aligned themselves. They are metaphors, and not to be taken a literal declarations. I would encourage you to read other apocalyptic literature to understand the nature of this type of writing and its symbolism.

Actually, I'm not avoiding the point. I'm trying to get you to see that there are other solutions than to write "dragon" off as simply a mere symbolism. You said above that "Satan, according to biblical tradition, is a fallen angel," and I'm quite aware of that tradition; however, we are told to...


Colossians 2:8
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
KJV

The Greek word for "tradition" here is "paradosin," the accusative form of "paradosis," coming from "paradidomai" meaning "to surrender" or "to yield" or to "transmit." The word "paradosis," therefore, means a "transmission" (particularly the "verbal transmission" of rules found in the Jewish Talmud), the "oral tradition." We have such oral and written traditions, as well. We call it "theology." "Theology," the "study of God" in general, is SUPPOSED to be based on the Scriptures, but the truth is that MUCH of the stuff that is contained in theology is pieced together from portions of verses in their English translation, which most theologians don't even take to their original languages for clarification. "Angelology," a branch of general theology known as the study of "angels," ASSUMES from the first proposition that "angels" are "spiritual beings." A subset of "angelology" is "demonology," "the study of demons," and there's even a more refined subset, "satanology," for - you guessed it - the "study of Satan."

The problem with ALL of this is the basic assumption! The word "angel" is not a translation of any Greek word; it is a TRANSLITERATION of the Greek word "aggelos," meaning "messenger." SOMETIMES, the word MAY refer to a supernatural being sent from God, but MORE OFTEN THAN PEOPLE REALIZE, it refers to HUMAN messengers! The word "aggelos" was used of Yochanan the Immerser (John the Baptist) in Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; and Luke 7:27:


Matthew 11:7-11
7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
KJV

Mark 1:1-4
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
KJV

Luke 7:24-28
24 And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
25 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts.
26 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.
27 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
KJV

Notice, too, that it was also used in Luke 7:24 for the disciples of Yochanan.

Furthermore, the word "aggeloi," the plural of "aggelos," is also given wild interpretations in 1 Peter 1:12:


1 Peter 1:12
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
KJV

Ever hear the song, "Holy, Holy, Is What the Angels Sing," written by Johnson Oatman, Jr. in 1894 (music by John R. Sweney)? You can find it at http://www.hymntime.com/tch/htm/h/o/l/holholis.htm. With all due respect to Brother Oatman, he probably got the idea for the words from this passage. Many assume that these "angels" here in 1 Peter 1:12 cannot look into the gospel and salvation and must therefore silently fold their wings when the saints are singing about their salvation.

HOWEVER, one should look at the verse's context, and look at what happens when we substitute the MEANING of "aggeloi," "messengers," instead of the word "angels":


1 Peter 1:3-12
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the messengers desire to look into.
KJV

What were prophets if not messengers of God to the children of Isra'el?! Therefore, I believe that the context simply equates these messengers to the prophets who "inquired and searched diligently" about the grace to come, but it was not revealed to them. It was revealed to Peter and to whom Peter was writing years later, instead! THESE PROPHETS were the "angels" or messengers who desired to look into "the grace that should come unto you."

There are several other places in Scripture where "messengers" makes better sense than the transliteration "angels." Some of these were noticed by the interpreters/translators into English and gave the word "messengers"; others not so much. For instance, James 2:25:


James 2:25
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers (Greek: aggeloi), and had sent them out another way?
KJV

This was noticed by the translator and therefore rendered the word "messengers," but not so in the following passages:


Revelation 1:20
20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
KJV

Revelation 2:1
1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
KJV

Revelation 2:8
8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
KJV

Revelation 2:12
12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;
KJV

Revelation 2:18
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
KJV

Revelation 3:1
1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
KJV

Revelation 3:7
7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
KJV

Revelation 3:14
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
KJV

In all of these cases, the "angel" or "aggelos" is the messenger of the church of a particular community. That would be the pastor of that congregation.

Now, this last case that I'm using for an example is a little complicated, but it, too, is a case where "aggelos" should have been translated as "messenger" because the "angel" here is probably human:

Revelation 21:9
9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
KJV

Revelation 22:8-9
8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
KJV

First, notice that the "angel" that showed the New Jerusalem to Yochanan (John) was one of the seven who had the bowls of plagues.
Then, notice that Yochanan tried to bow before his feet in verse 8.
The REASON why He was not to bow though is significant: "for I am thy fellow servant and of thy brethren the prophets." Many think he was saying...

"I am a fellow servant (of you) and (of your brothers the prophets)."

This would separate out to be...

"I am a fellow servant of you AND I am a fellow servant of your brothers the prophets."

But, that's not how the Greek is worded.

It's actually,...

"I am (a fellow servant of you) and (of your brothers the prophets)."

This would separate out to be...

"I am a fellow servant of you AND I am of your brothers the prophets."

In other words, this "angel" is ONE OF THE PROPHETS, a human "messenger" of God!

The bottom line is that the Greek word "aggelos" MAY refer to a supernatural being who acts as a messenger from God, but there are MANY instances - some instances that are difficult to recognize without digging deeper - where the messenger is a HUMAN messenger, even if a messenger for God, such as a pastor or a prophet!

What I am saying it this: The study of angelology (and therefore theology on haSatan, as well) is based on X number of verses from Scripture within which verses theologians believe the "aggeloi" are supernatural "messengers" or what we typically call "angels." BUT, if that X number of verses is decreased by 1 for each of Y times the word "aggeloi" is discovered to actually be talking about HUMAN "messengers," then that is X - Y number of verses that are left upon which one can construct some idea of angelology!

Now, this is just the New Testament, but the Old Testament has the same thing to consider because, again, the Hebrew word for "angel" AND for "messenger" is "mal'akh," and again, some instances of Scripture that contain that word MAY be talking about supernatural "messengers" or "angels," but SOME of those instances of Scripture, and again, probably many more than we realize, are talking about HUMAN "messengers!"

The conclusion? What do we really KNOW about "angels?" The answer to the question: Not as much as we THINK we know!

 

[veteran]

Prophetic literature and apocalyptic literature are not read the same way vet. An apocalyptic vision is not the same as a prophetic utterance.

That's a nutty statement too. Now Bible prophecy isn't really prophetic aferall???? Nutty!

"Apocalyptic literature" is MAN'S philosophy, a label and categorization men created, not God.

Is there anyone here that can actually read God's Word without having to revert to some doctrine of man???

 

[daq]

Is there anyone here that can actually read God's Word without having to revert to some doctrine of man???

Of course but the question is who is truly willing to accept the Truth even if it discounts his or her own opinions?

Exodus 7:9-12
9. When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a tanniyn.
10. And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the Lord had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a tanniyn.
11. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became tanniynim: but the rod of Aaron devoured their rods!



The rod of Moshe became a nachash-serpent but the rods of Aaron and the sorcerers of Egypt became tanniynim-dragons.

 

[Wormwood]

Retrobyter,

Wow. That is quite a rabbit trail. I am very aware of these different fields of study as well as the Greek language. Simply because something is a field of study does not mean those fields are not based in Scripture. Moreover, I said "Biblical tradition" not "human tradition." Its a tradition based on the church's interpretation of the Bible over the past two thousand years (which I think is more significant than any single person's individual interpretation that Satan is a giant lizard hanging out at the bottom of the ocean somewhere).

Satan is called "the prince of the power of the air" as well as the "god of this world." Satan "appeared" to Jesus in the desert to tempt him (which would have been difficult for a giant sea monster to do...especially when it came to transporting Jesus to the Temple to ask him to jump of the high corner of one of the walls...don't you think someone would have seen that? Kinda hard to miss a giant sea monster hanging out at the Temple). Satan told God he was going to and fro throughout the earth "walking" up and down on it (Job 1:7). This seems odd since, according to you he is a physical snake monster who no longer has legs to walk with. Demons possess people, and Mark 5 records a legion (1,000) of demons all possessing one individual, which later scatter into a herd of pigs. Angels appeared to Jesus as he prayed in the Garden. Clearly, Satan, demons, and angels (the supernatural kind of course) are non-physical beings that "appear" to people, can inhabit human (or animal) bodies, and can inflict pain on or strengthen individuals. All of these "supernatural beings" depicted in Scripture are spiritual beings, not physical ones, including Satan.

I'm aware that the Greek word for angel means messenger, just as Satan means "adversary." What I am not aware of is how your lengthy comments on that word have anything to do with whether or not Satan is a literal sea-monster at the bottom of the ocean or if he is a non-corporeal being. I think the Bible is very clear on the topic and I think you are dodging the issues again.

That's a nutty statement too. Now Bible prophecy isn't really prophetic aferall???? Nutty!

"Apocalyptic literature" is MAN'S philosophy, a label and categorization men created, not God.

Is there anyone here that can actually read God's Word without having to revert to some doctrine of man???

You should try reading what people actually write. I dont really care how you label it. To put it on the bottom shelf for you: Yes, a vision is different from a prophecy.

All my MAN philosophers and I are curious about how you and God interpret Peter's prophecy/vision on the roof at Simon's house in Acts 10. Apparently God was prophesying that a day was coming when he was going to drop a blanket with unclean animals on it on the earth. We should really start to prepare for the day of the great unclean smothering I suppose. After all, we wouldn't want to be nutty and get all philosophical and symbolic about such matters would we?

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Wormwood, and since I don't know how soon I can finish this post, shabbat shalom, as well. (Shabbat starts at sundown with the sighting of the first three stars.)

Retrobyter,

Wow. That is quite a rabbit trail. I am very aware of these different fields of study as well as the Greek language. Simply because something is a field of study does not mean those fields are not based in Scripture. Moreover, I said "Biblical tradition" not "human tradition." Its a tradition based on the church's interpretation of the Bible over the past two thousand years (which I think is more significant than any single person's individual interpretation that Satan is a giant lizard hanging out at the bottom of the ocean somewhere).

Satan is called "the prince of the power of the air" as well as the "god of this world." Satan "appeared" to Jesus in the desert to tempt him (which would have been difficult for a giant sea monster to do...especially when it came to transporting Jesus to the Temple to ask him to jump of the high corner of one of the walls...don't you think someone would have seen that? Kinda hard to miss a giant sea monster hanging out at the Temple). Satan told God he was going to and fro throughout the earth "walking" up and down on it (Job 1:7). This seems odd since, according to you he is a physical snake monster who no longer has legs to walk with. Demons possess people, and Mark 5 records a legion (1,000) of demons all possessing one individual, which later scatter into a herd of pigs. Angels appeared to Jesus as he prayed in the Garden. Clearly, Satan, demons, and angels (the supernatural kind of course) are non-physical beings that "appear" to people, can inhabit human (or animal) bodies, and can inflict pain on or strengthen individuals. All of these "supernatural beings" depicted in Scripture are spiritual beings, not physical ones, including Satan.

I'm aware that the Greek word for angel means messenger, just as Satan means "adversary." What I am not aware of is how your lengthy comments on that word have anything to do with whether or not Satan is a literal sea-monster at the bottom of the ocean or if he is a non-corporeal being. I think the Bible is very clear on the topic and I think you are dodging the issues again.

...

Good start. Now, let's think rationally: All of the words that are used for haSatan and his minions are not all necessarily related. We call them "demons," but did you know that the concept of a "daemon" is not something that is necessarily good or evil?

In computer technology, within business infrastructure, mainframes and minicomputers have traditionally had semi-intelligent programs that govern the order of print requests sent to the collective printers from multiple sources. These programs have been called "printer daemons." They control the order and priority of print jobs sent to the printers through the print-spoolers. The same thing is done for e-mail servers today. They are not "evil programs"; they are "CONTROL programs" - lesser "LORDS" of their domain! And, that is what a "demon" is:


NT:1142 daimoon (dah'-ee-mown); from daioo (to distribute fortunes); a daemon or supernatural spirit (of a bad nature):

KJV - devil.

NT:1140 daimonion (dahee-mon'-ee-on); neuter of a derivative of NT:1142; a daemonic being; by extension a deity:
KJV - devil, god.

NT:1139 daimonizomai (dahee-mon-id'-zom-ahee); middle voice from NT:1142; to be exercised (controlled) by a daemon:
KJV - have a (be vexed with, be possessed with) devil (-s).

NT:1141 daimonioodees (dahee-mon-ee-o'-dace); from NT:1140 and NT:1142; daemon-like:
KJV - devilish.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Looking up the word "daemon" in a dictionary,...

daemon - noun. a supernatural being or force not specifically evil || a demon (indwelling compulsive force) daemonic adjective. [Latin.]

The word comes from the Latin, which in turn comes from the Greek words above, and the word finds its origins in the Greco-Roman mythology as part of the Greek pantheon:

Under the "Etymology" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(computing), Wikipedia says,...

A further characterization of the mythological symbolism is that a daemon is something which is not visible yet is always present and working its will. Plato's Socrates describes his own personal daemon to be something like the modern concept of a moral conscience:


"Daemon" is actually a much older form of "demon"; daemons have no particular bias towards good or evil, but rather serve to help define a person's character or personality. The ancient Greeks' concept of a "personal daemon" was similar to the modern concept of a "guardian angel"—eudaemonia is the state of being helped or protected by a kindly spirit. As a rule, UNIX systems seem to be infested with both daemons and demons. (p.403)


"The favour of the gods has given me a marvelous gift, which has never left me since my childhood. It is a voice which, when it makes itself heard, deters me from what I am about to do and never urges me on."
—Character of Socrates in "The ages", Plato

So, it is important that we understand just what I am saying here. I haven't said that haSatan is not a spirit; on the other hand, we need to understand that he may NOT be a "fallen angel" as many have suggested. I am reminded of haMelekh Shlomo's (King Solomon's) words in Ecclesiastes:


Ecclesiastes 3:21
21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
KJV



The spirit of the ofis or nachash (snake), the drakoon or tan (dragon), did not go away when the creature's body died, but it WAS the spirit of that ORIGINAL SNAKE that had legs! I may have misspoken before to say that "dragon" means "a large snake or lizard"; it actually just means a "large snake." However, if in your imagination you give back "a large snake" its legs, what do you have if not something that looks like a "lizard," the Greek word for "lizard" being "saura," from which we get our word "dinosaur?" Is that so hard to accept?

Look at the words in Revelation again and NOTICE THE ORDER of the wording:


Revelation 12:9
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
KJV

Revelation 20:1-3
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
KJV

Isn't it worded that it was the great dragon, the original serpent, that was THEN called the "Devil" ("Slanderer") and "Satan" ("Enemy")?

Furthermore, did you know that the Greek word "pneuma" ("ruach" in Hebrew), translated as "spirit," can also be translated as "attitude?" Consider the following verses:


1 John 4:1-6
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
KJV

In this context, it is clear to me that the word "pneuma" is referring to the "ATTITUDE" of an antichristos, a person who is "against the Messiah." Furthermore, by the test provided, one can make a proper determination as to whether it is an attitude of truth or an attitude of error.

So, what was the ATTITUDE of the original serpent, the original snake? Has not ...

"Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:4-5, KJV)

... persisted down through the millennia? YOU BET IT HAS!

Of course, the PRIMARY meaning of "pneuma," like its Hebrew counterpart, "ruach," is "WIND!" Why do you think we call a paradigm shift in opinion a "change in the winds," or the progressive flow of technology the "winds of progress?"

These are just some thoughts for you to ponder. Do we really need to put so much stock in things that were said to the king of Bavel (Babylon) in Isaiah 14 or the prince of Tsor (Tyre) in Ezekiel 28 as words said directly to haSatan? On the other hand, these men could INDEED have been influenced by the "ruach" of haSatan, the attitude of the original serpent called "the Enemy!"

 

[Wormwood]

Again, this seems like some major rabbit trails. Why do you insist on going into the etymology of each of these words when it really has little or nothing to do with our discussion? Can you actually read Greek or are you simply using a lexicon to develop this theology of yours? If so, I would caution you on developing your theological views that way. Just because a word can mean different things does not mean a single word contains all that meaning in one context. If I use the word "cap" it can mean a baseball hat, a lid, a bullet or a host of other things. The context defines the word and the same is true with Greek. Unless you are very familiar with Koine Greek, I would encourage you to stick with some major English translations and trust the 50-100 translating scholars that put the translation together. The word, "demon" in the Biblical contexts I have cited clearly mean evil spirit. So I really don't know what you are getting at unless you want to cite a particular text where you don't think this is the case as it relates to our discussion.

I have taken many classes on Greek language and work with is regularly. So you don't really need to go into such details with words unless it actually pertains to our discussion. But just by way of clarification, "pneuma" is used 379 times in the NT. The ESV translates it "spirit" 374 times with the other 5 times being translated "breath" or "wind." Pneuma is translated "spirit" 356 times by the NIV. It is only translated "attitude" once out of 379 occurances in the NIV and that is Eph. 4:23 where it is clearly talking about the inner person which could refer to ones disposition. Just because something can be translated a certain way does not mean it should be translated that way. If the word pneuma is translated Spirit/spirit 99.9% of the time, then I would translate it as such unless the context simply will not permit it to be understood that way.

Back to the main point: "Dragon" as it is translated in Revelation does actually depict what we think of when we think of a dragon or snake monster. Also, Satan is not a physical snake being on earth. He is spirit and therefore the words used of him that depict him as a snake, dragon, Leviathan, or god of the world are conjuring images and are not literal depictions of his form or appearance. That was horsecamp's original point that you were in disagreement about.

 

[day]

is satan a literal dragon IN THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER ? and can he literaly be bound with a chain? and does hell REALLY have a literal key to lock it?
and if these things are picture language why then would you think a thousand years would not also be picture language..

ALSO WHY IS THER NO MENTION ANY WHERE ELSE IN SCRIPTURE OF A LITERAL THOUSAND YEAR REIGN BY CHRIST ?
CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT IMPORTANT WOULD BE MENTIONED AND TOLD ABOUT..ELSE WHERE ..WHY IS IT NOT?

ALSO WHAT DO YOU THINK JOHN WAS TELLING US ABOUT THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS .. WHEN HE SAID HE SAW THESE VISIONS WHILE IN THE SPIRIT ?


REV 20 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.



EVER HEAR HANDLES MESSIAH? AND HE SHALL REIGN FOR -------- EVER AND EVER ..

I know I am coming late to this thread and the original topic seems to have changed but I just wanted to say that I am glad someone else has wondered why in a book written by an author known to use numbers symbolically, is 1000 taken so literally.

I can't back up my belief at present with specific tests, but it seems like Satan is shut away after the first resurrection (of believers) so that he cannot accuse while the just are judged not for sin but for rewards. In this case 1000 years would mean the full amount of time necessary to finish the work. Then the rest are resurrected for the Great White Throne judgement and Satan is released because he is also to be judged.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Wormwood.

Yes, I can actually read Greek and do my studies in the NT directly from the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren for the United Bible Societies, (c) 1966, 1968, 1975). For the grammar, I use the Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament by William Hersey Davis, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey, and the Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek by James Morwood.

I can also read Hebrew and used to do my studies out of the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (Jewish Publication Society, (c) 2000). Now, I almost exclusively use the PC Study Bible, because I've found that there's truly no difference (except for a few glitches in the program's database). For the grammar, I use The First Hebrew Primer for Adults by Ethelyn Simon, Nanette Stahl, Linda Motzkin, and Joseph Anderson and Hebrew for Dummies by Jill Suzanne Jacobs.

I will sometimes refer to another interlinear for hints on sentence agreement, but I love PC Study Bible. When I first got the program, I was looking SPECIFICALLY for a computer-based Bible program that had the Greek and Hebrew interlinears. Most only do interlinears between English versions and/or include a myriad of study helps and commentaries. IMO, that's not good enough. I NEEDED the ability to do searches on words IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES, not just the English translations of those words. When I purchased PC Study Bible, they had several versions, some cheaper than others, but I spent the extra money for the addition of the Hebrew/Greek interlinears. My Bible now IS my computer with PC Study Bible, and I take it to church or synagogue with me. (I don't mean this to sound like an ad, but it was the only program that had what I needed at the time.)

IMO, it's not enough to know the nouns and verbs that are used in a particular context. One must also have access to the grammar! One must also be able to tell what adjectives and adverbs and prepositions are being used to modify and describe the words in question.

I've found that etymology is KEY to understanding the fundamental definition of a word. The etymology of a word helps to find the INTERSECTION of the various definitions that a word may have for the true definition of that word. A word that has multiple definitions, particularly ASSUMED definitions, denotations, or connotations, will be subjectively translated at best and the context suffers mistranslation. Many Bible students will consider the definition of a word to be the UNION of the various definitions described in dictionaries and lexicons, only to suffer from "definition overload." They try to overcome this overload by either (1) ascribing arbitrarily the definition that SEEMS to make the best sense in the context (i.e., at the whim of the student), or by (2) acquiring a consensus for the definition that most commentaries and/or biblical scholars accept for that context (i.e., at the mercy of the "experts").

As far as "experts" are concerned, I will read commentaries for the exposure to new thoughts and ideas of which I am not aware. ("You don't know that you don't know what you don't know.") That, IMO, is the true value of commentaries. HOWEVER, when it comes to "experts" on God's Word, my governing verse is...


Romans 3:4
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
KJV

Which "experts" are you going to accept? What set of "experts" will be with whom you agree? What set of "experts" will you reject? This, too, is subjective and dependent upon the teaching to which you were exposed, your own personal bias, and whether the "experts" are witty enough or charismatic enough to get you to agree with their points of view. It most often does NOT depend on how objectively "right" their views of Scriptures are! Therefore, my view on all commentaries is skeptical. Take them "with a grain of salt" as the fallible works of men that they are.

When one focuses on the INTERSECTION of the various definitions, particularly in light of the etymology, one acquires the fundamental definition of that word. Once that fundamental definition of the word is known, one can then allow the CONTEXT ITSELF to choose and govern the particular details that expand upon that definition for that context. As a general rule, the more detailed and restrictive the definition of a word is, the more absurdity is introduced into the understanding of that context. Conversely, the more general and the more freedom that is given to the definition of the word, the less absurd will be the understanding of its context. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:


Hebrews 3:1-2
3 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle (Greek: ton Apostolon) and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
KJV

So, Yeshua` (Jesus) was an apostle! If one checks out the various definitions of "apostle," one may find...

APOSTLE
A special messenger of Jesus Christ; a person to whom Jesus delegated authority for certain tasks. The word apostle is used of those twelve disciples whom Jesus sent out, two by two, during His ministry in Galilee to expand His own ministry of preaching and healing. It was on that occasion, evidently, that they were first called "apostles" (Mark 3:14; 6:30).
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

So, Jesus Christ was "a special messenger of Jesus Christ" and "a person to whom Jesus delegated authority for certain tasks"? So, Jesus Christ was delegated authority by Jesus? Are they different persons? (Of course, this is exaggerated to make the point.) The addition of all this information adds confusion to the simple understanding of the word:


APOSTLE
("one sent forth"). The official name of the twelve whom Jesus sent forth to preach, and who also were with Him throughout His earthly ministry. Peter states the qualifications before the election of Judas' successor (Acts 1:21), namely, that he should have companied with the followers of Jesus "all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them, beginning from the baptism of John unto the day that He was taken up, to be a witness with the others of His resurrection." So the Lord, "Ye are they that have continued with Me in My temptations" (Luke 22:28). The Holy Spirit was specially promised to bring all things to their remembrance whatever Jesus had said, to guide them into all truth, and to enable them to testify of Jesus with power to all lands (John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:13-14). They were some of them fishermen, one a tax collector, and most of them unlearned. Though called before, they did not permanently follow Him until their call as apostles.
(from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright © 1998, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

APOSTLE
(a-pos'-l) (apostolos, literally, "one sent forth," an envoy, missionary): For the meaning of this name as it meets us in the New Testament, reference is sometimes made to classical and Jewish parallels. In earlier classical Greek there was a distinction between an aggelos or messenger and an apostolos, who was not a mere messenger, but a delegate or representative of the person who sent him. In the later Judaism, again, apostoloi were envoys sent out by the patriarchate in Jerusalem to collect the sacred tribute from the Jews of the Dispersion. It seems unlikely, however, that either of these uses bears upon the Christian origin of a term which, in any case, came to have its own distinctive Christian meaning. To understand the word as we find it in the New Testament it is not necessary to go beyond the New Testament itself. To discover the source of its Christian use it is sufficient to refer to its immediate and natural signification. The term used by Jesus, it must be remembered, would be Aramaic, not Greek, and apostolos would be its literal equivalent.
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

IMO, one should just leave it as "one sent forth" or even a "sent one" and let the CONTEXT show how that "one" was "sent."

The same thing can be said for the Greek word "drakoon." It was a fairly common word that was used in Greek, SOMETIMES used of mythological creatures within the Greco-Roman mythology. I believe that it's best to leave the definition a "large snake." Leave all the imaginative stuff off of the word and let the context add it, if the author intended it that way.


NT:1404 drakoon (drak'-own); probably from an alternate form of derkomai (to look); a fabulous kind of serpent (perhaps as supposed to fascinate):
KJV - dragon.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

We should let this word "drakoon" (using a double-oh for omega) be simply a "kind of serpent" or snake that "fascinates" or captivates the observer's attention. We might even say it mesmerizes, but that might be implying an unnatural draw that oversteps the boundaries of the word.

And, haSatan may not BE a "physical snake on this earth," but he sure USED TO BE a physical snake on this earth! That's what Yochanan (John) said! One just needs to ACCEPT what he said without all the drama! Also, it may be commonly accepted that he is a "spirit," but show me ONE PLACE IN SCRIPTURE that SAYS he is! And, NOWHERE does it call him an "angel," fallen or otherwise! Isn't it interesting how much we accept on assumption?
Shalom, day.

I know I am coming late to this thread and the original topic seems to have changed but I just wanted to say that I am glad someone else has wondered why in a book written by an author known to use numbers symbolically, is 1000 taken so literally.

I can't back up my belief at present with specific tests, but it seems like Satan is shut away after the first resurrection (of believers) so that he cannot accuse while the just are judged not for sin but for rewards. In this case 1000 years would mean the full amount of time necessary to finish the work. Then the rest are resurrected for the Great White Throne judgement and Satan is released because he is also to be judged.

I don't mean to be cantankerous, but 1,000 is just a number like other numbers we accept literally just fine. For instance, Revelation contains the numbers 666 and 144,000 and no one questions the accuracy of THOSE numbers; why focus on a passage that mentions exactly "1,000 years" SIX TIMES IN A ROW?! Why must THIS particular number be symbolic or figurative? I'm asking this question rhetorically. I'm not really looking for an explanation, because IMO, there ISN'T a good reason.

 

[veteran]

You should try reading what people actually write. I dont really care how you label it. To put it on the bottom shelf for you: Yes, a vision is different from a prophecy.

Don't be silly. When Apostle John was told to write down Christ's Revelation for the Churches in Asia it was because the whole was a given PROPHECY. It was only that the METHOD of it given was by visions.

When God gave Ezekiel visions of the future Milennium temple and renewing of the kingdom of Israel under Christ in the world to come, he wrote it down because it is PROPHECY.

All you're trying to do is a PLAY on words to try and confuse people, because that's one of the ways the deceived followers of the doctrines of men operate, create a non-existant separation of ideas with different words and then substitute a new doctrine in between them. That's all you're doing here with this matter, and it's a illusion.

 

[Wormwood]

Retro-

I dont really consider using interlinears or software to look up definitions actually knowing Koine Greek. If you cannot pick up a USB4 or NA27 and read it, then you dont really know the language. You can know about a language, but that doesnt mean you know it. Just like someone can know the English alphabet and look up a word in Websters...but if they dont acutally have a working knowledge of it that allows them to read it or speak it...we dont say they "know" English. I think is great that you have that software and that you like to do word studies, but this, a Greek expert, does not make. I think it curious anytime someone uses interlinears and lexicons to question scholars who actually know, read and parse the Greek.

I disagree with you that etymology is the key to translation. We can go through the etymology of all kinds of English words, but that doesnt really mean that the history of the word gives greater insight about the current usage of that word. For instance, pandemonium is derived etymologically from two Greek words, pan - meaning all or everywhere and daemon - demon. So, etymoloically we can say that the word is derived from a picture of "demons everywhere." However, when people use the word pandemonium today, they dont think about demons being everywhere. They dont think about the origin of the word or its background. They think of how it is used commonly in everyday language...which is simply to mean something like chaos. The same is true with first century Koine Greek. While etymology can be useful, it is a knowledge of Koine Greek and grammar that is the most help for proper translation. In Greek, sometimes words mean different things based on sentence structure. Some prepositions have entirely different meaning based on whether or not they are genitive or nominative, etc. Moreover, there are grammatical rules (such as a rule known as Colwells Rule) that makes a difference in how a sentence is understood or translated. I say all this merely to say that while having a Greek lexicon and interlinear is helpful and can aid in Bible study...these tools should not be used to question the translations of scholars unless you are actually fluent in Koine Greek or are echoing the ideas of another scholar who has given you sufficient rationale for questioning a particular translation. Yes, unless you really know Greek you are at the mercy of the translators and choosing which one to accept can be a guessing game. Fortunately, there really is very little differentiation between scholars on how most of the NT is translated. Most of the differences have to do with English reading levels and not really about the meaning of a particular word.

So, if you want to translate pneuma as "attitude" in Revelation simply because it is translated this way 0.01% of the time and it fits your theology, I think it would be an error. It is not the best translation of the word in those contexts. Also, I dont know how it couild be more clear. Dragon means a sea monster like snake creature. That would have been the primary meaning of the word for first century Greek speakers. If they author only wanted to conjure the idea of a snake, he would have only used ophis.

Don't be silly. When Apostle John was told to write down Christ's Revelation for the Churches in Asia it was because the whole was a given PROPHECY. It was only that the METHOD of it given was by visions.

When God gave Ezekiel visions of the future Milennium temple and renewing of the kingdom of Israel under Christ in the world to come, he wrote it down because it is PROPHECY.

All you're trying to do is a PLAY on words to try and confuse people, because that's one of the ways the deceived followers of the doctrines of men operate, create a non-existant separation of ideas with different words and then substitute a new doctrine in between them. That's all you're doing here with this matter, and it's a illusion.

Vet,
Of all your comments on this board, I have yet to read something you have written that is kind, edifying or encouraging toward another person. Your doctrine is meaningless because your attitude stinks. I have no use for a conversation with you any further.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shabbat shalom, Wormwood.

Retro-

I dont really consider using interlinears or software to look up definitions actually knowing Koine Greek. If you cannot pick up a USB4 or NA27 and read it, then you dont really know the language. You can know about a language, but that doesnt mean you know it. Just like someone can know the English alphabet and look up a word in Websters...but if they dont acutally have a working knowledge of it that allows them to read it or speak it...we dont say they "know" English. I think is great that you have that software and that you like to do word studies, but this, a Greek expert, does not make. I think it curious anytime someone uses interlinears and lexicons to question scholars who actually know, read and parse the Greek.

I disagree with you that etymology is the key to translation. We can go through the etymology of all kinds of English words, but that doesnt really mean that the history of the word gives greater insight about the current usage of that word. For instance, pandemonium is derived etymologically from two Greek words, pan - meaning all or everywhere and daemon - demon. So, etymoloically we can say that the word is derived from a picture of "demons everywhere." However, when people use the word pandemonium today, they dont think about demons being everywhere. They dont think about the origin of the word or its background. They think of how it is used commonly in everyday language...which is simply to mean something like chaos. The same is true with first century Koine Greek. While etymology can be useful, it is a knowledge of Koine Greek and grammar that is the most help for proper translation. In Greek, sometimes words mean different things based on sentence structure. Some prepositions have entirely different meaning based on whether or not they are genitive or nominative, etc. Moreover, there are grammatical rules (such as a rule known as Colwells Rule) that makes a difference in how a sentence is understood or translated. I say all this merely to say that while having a Greek lexicon and interlinear is helpful and can aid in Bible study...these tools should not be used to question the translations of scholars unless you are actually fluent in Koine Greek or are echoing the ideas of another scholar who has given you sufficient rationale for questioning a particular translation. Yes, unless you really know Greek you are at the mercy of the translators and choosing which one to accept can be a guessing game. Fortunately, there really is very little differentiation between scholars on how most of the NT is translated. Most of the differences have to do with English reading levels and not really about the meaning of a particular word.

So, if you want to translate pneuma as "attitude" in Revelation simply because it is translated this way 0.01% of the time and it fits your theology, I think it would be an error. It is not the best translation of the word in those contexts. Also, I dont know how it couild be more clear. Dragon means a sea monster like snake creature. That would have been the primary meaning of the word for first century Greek speakers. If they author only wanted to conjure the idea of a snake, he would have only used ophis.
...

Wow! Now even the moderators attack one's character? What did I say? Didn't I say that I read Greek just fine? Didn't I say that I "do my studies in the NT directly from the United Bible Societies' The Greek New Testament?" That is NOT an interlinear! Furthermore, it is based on much of the same material as the NA27 or the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. Indeed, the 3rd edition of the UBS Greek New Testament from which I study has its chief editor listed as Kurt Aland himself! And, furthermore, I think you mean the UBS4 (not USB4; it has NOTHING to do with a "Universal Serial Bus" device), the UBS4 being the next edition of that from which I study, the UBS3, "UBS" an abbreviation for "United Bible Societies."

Somehow, you also lost the information that I use Greek grammar books, as well.

I don't believe that anyone whose mother tongue is not Greek can say that he or she is truly "fluent in Koine Greek." I am a Greek scholar - a serious Greek student. That doesn't mean that "I've arrived," and I would challenge anyone who thinks that he HAS "arrived!" There's ALWAYS something more one can learn. Furthermore, one must remember that Greek, too, like Latin, is an INTERMEDIATE language, a stepping stone back to the Aramaic that Yeshua` spoke. Even most of the New Testament that we find in Greek in our most ancient manuscripts were probably originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew! We know that is true because of the Hebrew idioms and mannerisms in the text! And, NO ONE is safe studying only the Koine Greek, even if their studies adhere to the New Testament! Much of the New Testament contains quotations from the Old.

You can disagree about the etymology all you want; it doesn't change the fact that the history of the word is crucially important to the application of that word for any given sentence or its context.

Just look at our own history of "computerese": To truly understand the word "bit," for instance, requires the student to understand that the word is a contraction for "binary digit." It has nothing to do with a drill "bit," or the "bit" of the horse's bridle. However, if one investigates the development of computers, one will find that the word "byte" was a play on this word "bit" as taking a huge "bite," rather than just a little "bit," because eight "bits" are a "byte." The creators of the word "byte" purposely changed the spelling to differentiate the eating of food analogy from the computer information. Indeed, that is how the name for the half-byte of four "bits" was chosen - i.e. the "nybble," again, a purposeful change of "nibble."

Even in Greek, those prepositions that you were talking about can be seen as having the same definition, regardless the case, by simply picturing the object of the preposition in the right light. For instance, let's look at the word "epi": The meaning is normally "above," "over," or "upon." All one has to do is see the object, such as a ball in relationship to the flat roof of a house, as as being thrown "above the roof," flying "over" the roof, or landing "upon" the roof. Sometimes, it is said to mean "against" in the accusative case, as in to rise up "against" an enemy, but if one remembers the Hebrew idiom of "falling UPON" an enemy, as Cain "fell upon" Abel, it makes sense to use the word "upon," even in this instance. That's all I'm saying. Accept it or reject it, but PLEASE don't think I'm naive!

 

[Wormwood]

Shabbat shalom, Wormwood.



Wow! Now even the moderators attack one's character? What did I say? Didn't I say that I read Greek just fine? Didn't I say that I "do my studies in the NT directly from the United Bible Societies' The Greek New Testament?" That is NOT an interlinear! Furthermore, it is based on much of the same material as the NA27 or the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. Indeed, the 3rd edition of the UBS Greek New Testament from which I study has its chief editor listed as Kurt Aland himself! And, furthermore, I think you mean the UBS4 (not USB4; it has NOTHING to do with a "Universal Serial Bus" device), the UBS4 being the next edition of that from which I study, the UBS3, "UBS" an abbreviation for "United Bible Societies."

Somehow, you also lost the information that I use Greek grammar books, as well.

I don't believe that anyone whose mother tongue is not Greek can say that he or she is truly "fluent in Koine Greek." I am a Greek scholar - a serious Greek student. That doesn't mean that "I've arrived," and I would challenge anyone who thinks that he HAS "arrived!" There's ALWAYS something more one can learn. Furthermore, one must remember that Greek, too, like Latin, is an INTERMEDIATE language, a stepping stone back to the Aramaic that Yeshua` spoke. Even most of the New Testament that we find in Greek in our most ancient manuscripts were probably originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew! We know that is true because of the Hebrew idioms and mannerisms in the text! And, NO ONE is safe studying only the Koine Greek, even if their studies adhere to the New Testament! Much of the New Testament contains quotations from the Old.

You can disagree about the etymology all you want; it doesn't change the fact that the history of the word is crucially important to the application of that word for any given sentence or its context.

Just look at our own history of "computerese": To truly understand the word "bit," for instance, requires the student to understand that the word is a contraction for "binary digit." It has nothing to do with a drill "bit," or the "bit" of the horse's bridle. However, if one investigates the development of computers, one will find that the word "byte" was a play on this word "bit" as taking a huge "bite," rather than just a little "bit," because eight "bits" are a "byte." The creators of the word "byte" purposely changed the spelling to differentiate the eating of food analogy from the computer information. Indeed, that is how the name for the half-byte of four "bits" was chosen - i.e. the "nybble," again, a purposeful change of "nibble."

Even in Greek, those prepositions that you were talking about can be seen as having the same definition, regardless the case, by simply picturing the object of the preposition in the right light. For instance, let's look at the word "epi": The meaning is normally "above," "over," or "upon." All one has to do is see the object, such as a ball in relationship to the flat roof of a house, as as being thrown "above the roof," flying "over" the roof, or landing "upon" the roof. Sometimes, it is said to mean "against" in the accusative case, as in to rise up "against" an enemy, but if one remembers the Hebrew idiom of "falling UPON" an enemy, as Cain "fell upon" Abel, it makes sense to use the word "upon," even in this instance. That's all I'm saying. Accept it or reject it, but PLEASE don't think I'm naive!

Retro-

I apologize if it came across that I was attacking your character. I never said anything about you as a person. I know many people who are freshmen in Bible college who take a year of Greek and claim they can "read" it because they are familiar with some words and can read an occasional phrase as well as look up words in a lexicon. I guess technically they can read it. When you mentioned that you use a beginners guide to Greek grammar, it seemed to me that you did not read it fluently if you were relying on beginner grammar guides to assist you. So I was not implying you were lying. I apologize if you use it for another reason...but that is how it came across. I know of no Greek NT professors or fluent Koine readers who use interlinears or beginning grammar guides to aid them as they parse Greek words or phrases. Interlinears are generally used for those who dont know the language so they can identify words quickly without having to look up every word in a lexicon. It is kinda like you or I needing a beginners guide to English grammar for us to read an English sentence. At least that is how it seems to me. So given the texts you claimed assist you i figured you to be a first year Greek student who could read Greek in bits and pieces. This is not accurate? This is still technically reading, so I was not calling you a liar...but just not with the kind familiarity with the language I was claiming necessary to criticize translations that utilized 50-100 Greek scholars to interpret the text. Again, no offense intended by my earlier comments.

Yes. I know its UBS4. i own one (As well as a NA27...havent forked out the money for the NA28 yet). A typo. I dont generally proof read or spell check these comments. I dont understand why knowing modern Greek would make someone fluent in Koine. I am sure you are aware that Koine is a dead language and that the two are not the same. In any event, I guess my assumption is that you were a beginning Greek student based on some of your comments and translations thus far. Again, i was not calling you a liar. Your comments about the interpretation of dragon and pneuma seemed to simply be inaccurate from every lexicon and interpreter I have ever read or studied under.

Finally, as I said, etymology can be helpful, but I still maintain my comment that it is not the most important thing when it comes to interpretation as you asserted before. Words like "gay" dont mean the same thing today as it did in the past. Bully meant "darling" in the 16th century. Husband was originally a German word that had nothing to do with marriage, but referred to a house owner. The list goes on and on. The point is, while helpful at times, certainly not a key to interpretation in my mind. I suppose it doesnt really matter all that much, and I dont really know how we got here simply from my disagreement with you on the meaning of dragon (which I still maintain. That Greek word implies a mythical serpent monster, not a common snake or lizard as you asserted before.)

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Wormwood.

Thank you for your kind remarks, brother. I'm glad we can converse on a more level playing field. I only mentioned modern Greek because a person who knows modern Greek would have much less to overcome to learn Koine. I'll back-pedal a little, as well: Etymology is helpful, but it is not everything that is necessary to acquire the meaning of the word. Context, however, is often given attention far too little and far too infrequently. When one reduces the meaning of the word to its basic meaning, one is forced to concentrate more on the context, not only to understand the meaning of the word within that context but also to understand the context with that word in its place.

Regarding the Greek words of saura, ophis, herpeton, and drakoon, we understand that different words suggest at least slightly different meanings. No two words in the same language are exact synonyms or having two words for the same thing would be needlessly redundant ... and confusing. So, it would appear that "herpeton" is the more general of the four, referring to any "creeping thing," whether reptilian or amphibian. "Saura" is the "lizard," ophis or ofis is the "snake"; but what about the "drakoon?" Is it just a "mythological monster?" Or, could it have roots in truth that degraded into legend and then into myth?

See, I'm of the opinion that Evolution is a bad hypothesis - an educated guess - that just has LOTS of humanistic, atheistic, or at best agnostic proponents that have adopted the hypothesis, calling it a "theory" and treating it as "scientific law." There's trumped-up evidence that these proponents CLAIM support this "theory," but could just as easily support a different world view, if they would allow another voice in the classrooms. Don't you think it's odd that no one in most institutions can get their master's or doctorate degree without acceptance of the "theory" of Evolution? It's just a convenient way to take God out of the origins picture.

If one goes back to the ancient records and stories - mythology - of the Greeks and earlier, a "drakoon" was a very large snake, sometimes pictured with legs and sometimes pictured with wings, often with both, and they are very reminiscent of what we call "dinosaurs" or "deinosauroi" or "thunder-lizards" in the fossil record today. I don't object to the fossil record. How could one argue with all the finds in archaeology? I object to the CONCLUSIONS that evolutionists have formed, suggesting that they lived x millions of years ago and separated from mankind's existence by millions of years, as well. Yet, even in cave paintings there are drawings of creatures that can't be explained by modern creatures we know today. In Europe, in Africa, and in portions of Asia and Central America, there are unexplained sightings of creatures that do not fit in today's taxonomy. Where did they come from? Are they merely figments of people's imagination? Or, are they from pockets of isolated environments, practically untouched since the times of the dinosaurs? And, when was that? Was it back in the Jurassic Period, or was it more recent, like before the Flood of Noach and immediately after?

Reptiles will continue to grow longer and larger as long as they live. That's just a fact. Snakes in the Everglades have been recorded to be 14 to 18 feet in length, requiring six men to hold the things up for photographs. (I've seen such a photo at a barber shop in Sanford, FL.)

If a particular kind of reptile grows 2 feet in length in 5 years, how big would it get in 60 years? Well, if the rate is consistent, we're looking at a reptile 24 feet in length! How about 100 years? That would be a reptile 40 feet in length! Many reptiles today only live for about 5 years maximum.


Genesis 5:3-32
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed." 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.
32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
NIV

Taking Chanokh (Enoch) out of the picture because God took him early, we get an average age of ...

(930+912+905+910+895+962+969+777)/8 = 7260/8 = 907.5 years old before the Flood. And, Lamech may have died early, God saving him from the devastation of the Flood to come.

Assuming that animals lived proportionally as old, we can use the formula 907.5 / 70 (using the high side for human beings today) = x / 5. Rearranging the equation and solving for x, we get a proportional age of 64.8 years old.

It's my belief that all creatures before the Flood were herbivorous, some species not becoming carnivorous until after the Flood, and that this applied to ALL carnivores, both lions and tigers, and velociraptors and mosasaurs. The larger animals that probably lived between 60 to 100 years before the Flood, growing proportionately with their age, became huge creatures that we call "dinosaurs" today. Thus, this reptile 64.8 years old would grow to be almost 26 feet long! That's comparable to the creatures that we find in the "Jurassic Period!"

Now, enters another man who is famous for a particular reason:

Genesis 10:8-10
8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
KJV

I believe that Nimrowd, a great grandson of Noach, was indeed a mighty hunter, hunting these huge animals to extinction to preserve human life. They hunted these animals as long as they continued to grow large. I also believe that this continued to be an occupation down through the years, even to the time of Saint George of England's legends. Thus, much of the folklore that people take for granted today as mere myth, probably had its roots in reality.

If this is true, none of the "trophies" he might have taken would have been preserved, being exposed to the normal elements. Only the remains that were well buried by the catastrophic upheavals of the Flood would survive, and we call them "fossils" today.

Now, allow me to revisit the Greek of Revelation 12:

Revelation 12:3,7-9
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
...
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
KJV

Apokalupsis Iooannou 12:3,7-9
3 Kai oofthee allo seemeion en too ouranoo, kai idou drakoon megas purros, echoon kefalas hepta kai kerata deka kai epi tas kefalas autou hepta diadeemata,
...
7 Kai egeneto polemos en too ouranoo, ho Michaeel kai hoi aggeloi autou tou polemeesai meta tou drakontos. Kai ho drakoon epolemeesen kai hoi aggeloi autou,
8 kai ouk ischusen, oude topos heurethee autoon eti en too ouranoo.
9 Kai ebleethee ho drakoon ho megas, ho ofis ho archaios, ho kaloumenos Diabolos kai ho Satanas, ho planoon teen oikoumeneen holeen -- ebleethee eis teen geen, kai hoi aggeloi autou met' autou ebleetheesan.
The Greek New Testament (UBS)

And how about Revelation 20:1-3?

Revelation 20:1-3
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceived the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
KJV

Apokalupsis Iooannou 20:1-3
1 Kai eidon aggelon katabainonta ek tou ouranou, echonta teen klein tees abussou kai halusin megaleen epi teen cheira autou.
2 Kai ekpateesen ton drakonta, ho ofis ho archaios, hos estin Diabolos kai ho Satanas, kai edeesen auton chilia etee,
3 Kai ebalen auton eis teen abusson kai ekleisen kai esfragisen epanoo autou hina mee planeesee eti ta ethnee achri telesthee ta chilia etee; meta tauta dei lutheenai auton mikron chronon.
The Greek New Testament (UBS)

You know as I that archaios means "old, ancient, or former." This drakoon then IS "the snake the ancient (one)!" What "ancient snake?" The answer to that is simple: he is the ORIGINAL snake in Gan-`Eden, the Garden of Eden, the one who first led Chavah (Eve) astray.

And, what was its curse?

Genesis 3:14-15
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
KJV

Breshiyt 3:14-15
14 Vayo'mer YHVH Elohiym el-hanaachaash, "Kiy `aasiytaa zo't, aaruwr ataah mikaal habheemah uwmikol chayat hasaadeh; `al gchonkhaa teeleekh v`aafaar to'khal kaal ymeey chayeykhaa:
15 V'eeyvaah aashiyt beeynkhaa zar`akhaa uwveeyn haa'ishaah uwveeyn zar`akhaa ro'sh v'ataah tshuwfenuw `aaqeev":
JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh

If NOW the snake is cursed to go upon its belly, its abdomen, the curse suggests that the snake did NOT go upon its belly or abdomen BEFORE the curse! IT HAD LEGS! Furthermore, even the lizards technically go upon their bellies because their legs are set out to their sides, suggesting that the original snake's legs were below its body.

Therefore, I conclude that haSatan was the ancient snake with its legs below its body. Even the seraf, singular of serafiym (seraph, singular of seraphim or seraphims, supposedly a class of angels) was described in Yeshayahu's (Isaiah's) prophecy as a flying serpent with six wings, feet, and hands! (Isa. 6:2, 6; 14:29; 30:6.) Indeed the "fiery (poisonous) serpents" that bit the people were serafiym, and the "fiery serpent" that Mosheh (Moses) hung upon the pole was a seraf, not a naachaash! (Numbers 21:6, 8)

Can you see the pattern here? Just something to think about, whatever direction you're inclined to lean.

 

[Wormwood]

Retro,

Thanks for your kind response. I am in complete agreement that the primary issue behind translation is context. I am certainly not a Greek expert, although I have taken a few classes and can read good sections of the UBS4 (or NA27 when I am working on the computer). I do work with the Greek text frequently. I am pretty familiar with word structures and how the grammar functions, but still need to expand my vocabulary before I can study exclusively with the Greek text. Unfortunately, most of my education did not focus on languages (I took Hebrew as well but have long since forgotten much of it). I wish I was able to focus on this area more but it never really fit with the programs I have been in through the years.

Anyway, I think our difference in Revelation is much more theological than linguistic. I see the "dragon" picture as much more figurative. Revelation 12 gives us an entire scene with a woman with twelve stars over her head, a dragon, a war in heaven, etc. I think we all clearly recognize the woman as being symbolic (I wont get into my views about her currently as it will only sidetrack the discussion) and I would say the same is likely true about the river pouring out of the dragon's mouth, the "war" in heaven and so forth. I think it is clear that these are images seen in visions that communicate spiritual truths with physical images. Is this "heaven" in Rev. 21 an actual location located up above us somewhere? Is this an actual dragon being thrown "down" out of heaven? Was this an actual "war" with swords, or guns, or bombs? Was this an actual woman with actual stars over her head? Did Satan really sweep stars out of the sky with his tail? I think the answer to all these is no. These are images depicting things about God's people, the attacks of the enemy, and the fall of Satan and his power to accuse the people of God due to the work of the cross, as well as the subsequent persecution God's people face as a result of Christ's triumph (Rev. 12:5-7).

So I think to look at Satan as a literal snake either with or without legs which is somehow tied or not tied to evolution or the size of serpents prior to the fall is to take Revelation places John did not intend it to go. This is discussing spiritual realities about the power of the Gospel, the importance of enduring through persecution and the invisible evil forces at work in the world. At least that is how I understand these things. Satan as a dragon is simply one of many metaphors that communicates a great and terrible evil that is still at work in the world even though he has been defeated by the cross and will ultimately face his doom at the 2nd coming.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Wormwood.

Retro,

Thanks for your kind response. I am in complete agreement that the primary issue behind translation is context. I am certainly not a Greek expert, although I have taken a few classes and can read good sections of the UBS4 (or NA27 when I am working on the computer). I do work with the Greek text frequently. I am pretty familiar with word structures and how the grammar functions, but still need to expand my vocabulary before I can study exclusively with the Greek text. Unfortunately, most of my education did not focus on languages (I took Hebrew as well but have long since forgotten much of it). I wish I was able to focus on this area more but it never really fit with the programs I have been in through the years.

Anyway, I think our difference in Revelation is much more theological than linguistic. I see the "dragon" picture as much more figurative. Revelation 12 gives us an entire scene with a woman with twelve stars over her head, a dragon, a war in heaven, etc. I think we all clearly recognize the woman as being symbolic (I wont get into my views about her currently as it will only sidetrack the discussion) and I would say the same is likely true about the river pouring out of the dragon's mouth, the "war" in heaven and so forth. I think it is clear that these are images seen in visions that communicate spiritual truths with physical images. Is this "heaven" in Rev. 21 an actual location located up above us somewhere? Is this an actual dragon being thrown "down" out of heaven? Was this an actual "war" with swords, or guns, or bombs? Was this an actual woman with actual stars over her head? Did Satan really sweep stars out of the sky with his tail? I think the answer to all these is no. These are images depicting things about God's people, the attacks of the enemy, and the fall of Satan and his power to accuse the people of God due to the work of the cross, as well as the subsequent persecution God's people face as a result of Christ's triumph (Rev. 12:5-7).

So I think to look at Satan as a literal snake either with or without legs which is somehow tied or not tied to evolution or the size of serpents prior to the fall is to take Revelation places John did not intend it to go. This is discussing spiritual realities about the power of the Gospel, the importance of enduring through persecution and the invisible evil forces at work in the world. At least that is how I understand these things. Satan as a dragon is simply one of many metaphors that communicates a great and terrible evil that is still at work in the world even though he has been defeated by the cross and will ultimately face his doom at the 2nd coming.

Well, we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I'm not saying that there isn't some symbolism in Revelation 12, but symbolism on symbolism takes away some of the meaning of the passage, IMO.

Regardless, may God bless your language studies. I've found that the easiest way to increase your Greek vocabulary (or your Hebrew vocabulary) is to do the same thing we're instructed to do with our English vocabulary: Pick a new word each day and read it and its definition (the longer one, if you wish) at least five times in the morning and then try to use it in a simple sentence at least three times during the day. I believe you will find your vocabulary growing by leaps and bounds in no time. Don't worry if you forget a word, just brush up on it when you have the chance and try to use it in a few more sentences that day.

As far as Hebrew is concerned, I believe that the Lord Yeshua` is returning to reign here on this earth, not just for a 1000-year period, but ultimately over Isra'el forever. Therefore, since He will be a "King of kings" or a world emperor, I believe that the official language - the lingua franca of that time - will be Hebrew for His Kingdom. If you don't know it by then, you will soon enough.


Acts 26:13-14
13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
KJV

 

[Wormwood]

Retro-

Thanks for the encouraging words and the tips for expanding my Greek vocab. I'll give it a shot . Looking forward to his coming.