Revelation 5:9,10 - "On the Earth" vs. "Over the Earth"

[Witness]

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Is this internet page approved by GB and WT? Does WT endorse JW's to go on Biblehub or to go only to official JW org sites that have best bible translation and brand new interpretations ? :)))) 

 

This is interesting.  I didn't realize it is found in the WT's Kingdom Interlinear!

[Srecko Sostar]

I found interesting to present this two view about same issue, about religious truth, or to be said, what is the meaning of Bible text aka - interpretations. Both quotes are originated from persons who are deeply involved in defending religious truth and teachings. They are, i believe, bible scholars of some sort. I don't know what credentials they have.

 

First quote is made by an individual and is very concise. We may say, clear and simple as it should be, because we will agree how truth have to be clear and simple. But, perhaps it is not always that way :)) 

quote 1: There is no change, there is no misinterpretation. Therefore, there is no error. 

 

Second quote is made by group of people and is massive. And stands as opposite to first one. 

quote 2: We have always used the Bible as the sole authority for our beliefs, so we have adjusted our beliefs as our understanding of the Scriptures has been clarified. *

Such changes are in harmony with the Bible principle stated at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous is like the bright morning light that grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.” Just as the rising sun reveals details of a landscape gradually, God grants an understanding of divine truth progressively, in his due time. (1 Peter 1:10-12) As the Bible foretold, he has accelerated this process during “the time of the end.”—Daniel 12:4.

These adjustments in our understanding should neither surprise nor disturb us. Ancient worshipers of God also had mistaken ideas and expectations and needed to adjust their viewpoint.

 

I will leave further comments, if any, to the audience of this forum. :)) 

[Space Merchant]

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Oh dear. I don't think SM actually wants to understand what I'm saying.

Actually I do, hence my citation, JB.

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

What I'm saying is the CCJW / Watchtower are using both 'on the earth' and 'over the earth' in written translations. 

And? None of the 2 violates the Greek Strong's granted the word in question is still 1909, if it is not 1909, then you have a problem.

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

BUT they are teaching only 'over the earth'. Because it lines up with what they want to teach. 

lol what? You can't be serious.... "upon the earth" and "over the earth" there is no shift in teaching and or interpretation. The context of the verse/passage has not been negated whatsoever. Therefore, the Concordances outweighs your view here, regardless.

That being said, there are commentaries for EVERY SINGLE VERSE in the Bible. And granted as to what is seen by these studies, it puts your notion to shame, in this regard.

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

If they are writing both and only teaching one, then they are withholding the other viewpoint. 

No viewpoint is withheld. It is only you saying that, but the commentary disagrees with you, as is, with those in the Strong's community. The basic significance of the Greek word in question "epi" is upon, on, or before, over, etc, for that is not the only meaning. When used in connection with power, authority, or dignity, epi can also mean over as well. Therefore nothing has been shifted.

If a given translation is possible according to the known usage and rules of Greek (Greek Grammar and Structure), it is intellectually dishonorable to make accusation of a translation trying to make it fit his current beliefs.

The context points to the notion of the one who rules from heaven. And since “epi” can legitimately be translated over and or similar within G#1909, one can see this as the option that most likely reflects the intended meaning.
That being said, that statement of yours does not make much sense granted that the context of this verse alone is easily understood, in fact, nearly 100% of people who study the Bible, specifically Revelations, understand what this verse is about.

• As for context: It is regarding God's accomplishment. The purpose of restoring the earth under Kingship by means of the heavenly Kingdom, that consist of Lord Christ Jesus as the King, accompanied by the chosen ones [priests], whom have authority. As a whole, due to their divinity and connection, they make it possible to bring forth the earth into what God intended it to be, harmoniously aligned with God's original promise, thus fulfilling this purpose of restoration.
• More context: Verse 10. - And hast made us unto our God kings and priests; and didst make them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests. Of those whom thou didst redeem from every nation, thou didst make a kingdom and priests. Wordsworth remarks that these honours conferred upon the redeemed imply duties as well as privileges. They receive the princely honours conferred upon them only on condition that they also become priests, presenting themselves, their souls and bodies, a living sacrifice to God.

If you wish, you can post their view here, or quote them granted you deem the view is different, then we can see what is actually correct regarding this verse because from what I have seen, nearly everyone is in agreement with what this verse conveys, even the Restorationist community agrees, as is with even Bible adept commentators. The ones who do not agree are the ones who Creed adheres of MSC.

That being said, no viewpoint as been changed by anyone in this regard.....

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Could that be classed as deception ? Because if they are writing both, then they must believe both to be true. 

There is no deception, granted one can see the context of this verse is in regards to Jesus and the Chosen ones, having a role in the restoration of the earth, which correlates with God's actual purpose found in The Genesis Act of Creation, not to mention, God's Promise, found in that same book.

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

If a scripture has more than one possible explanation, shouldn't all explanations be given ? 

There is only one explanation granted the context. The problem here is you are injecting your viewpoint from an modern English speaker rather than one who applies Hermeneutics in the Scripture itself.

That being said, I thought your focus was on the wording, now you want to speak of explanation granted it is an obvious one?

I suggest you do the research because the your view vs. the legitimate view of this verse is vastly different: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/5-10.htm

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

SM says both are right. So why then does the CCJW only teach one of them ?

It is not about teaching, it is about context. The Interlinear is a literal Greek Translation into the Language, however, the latter is a modern day version and or revised, if need be.

The teaching regarding the Kingdom of God and who is to be stationed in said Kingdom has not changed, or has ever changed.

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Do they actually forget that they have written the Interlinear Translation, or do they forget that people still use it ? 

They haven't forgotten apparently, for they have it listed. Interlinear Bibles in general and or the Hebrew to English Translations are primarily for those that prefer the literal choice, and or do so to learn what this word means and or how it looks in the language in question, etc.

Most modern readers know of these translations too, but prefer to stick to the modern translations.

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Is it possible that the Anointed will be here on Earth, if only 'part time', to teach 'new scrolls' that are to be opened ? 

You do realize that God's Kingdom is in heaven - right?

God rule will be over the earth from HIS heavenly realm (Revelation 11:15), This is why the Bible calls, in 2 Timothy 4:18, The Heavenly Kingdom.

God's King will rule from God's Kingdom, and is accompanied by the chosen ones. They govern all things on the earth. The key element here is this: not the area, but the authority which they exercise.

 

What amazes me is how you missed this context...

And no - regardless of who is of Zion, they are not part time workers, if that is what you are implying.

Seriously - I strongly suggest you read the BASICS in Bible Strong's Concordances because as of now, you are sounding like the KJV-Onlyist I deal with.

[Space Merchant]

14 hours ago, Witness said:

I often refer to their own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, since many times their translation  on the right is in favor of their doctrine.

 

 

 

There is no shift in doctrine because everyone agrees on what this verse conveys, as you can see "EPI" is seen in the verse --> https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1909.htm

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

quote 1: There is no change, there is no misinterpretation. Therefore, there is no error. 

Because there is no change whatsoever. If there is a change, you'd have to prove that there is something else there that does not correlate with G#1909.

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

quote 2: We have always used the Bible as the sole authority for our beliefs, so we have adjusted our beliefs as our understanding of the Scriptures has been clarified. *

Such changes are in harmony with the Bible principle stated at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous is like the bright morning light that grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.” Just as the rising sun reveals details of a landscape gradually, God grants an understanding of divine truth progressively, in his due time. (1 Peter 1:10-12) As the Bible foretold, he has accelerated this process during “the time of the end.”—Daniel 12:4.

These adjustments in our understanding should neither surprise nor disturb us. Ancient worshipers of God also had mistaken ideas and expectations and needed to adjust their viewpoint.

Literally has nothing much to do with the subject matter at hand, and according to what you conveyed before, seems to be in reverse. Therefore attempting to use this when the Concordances are there is indefensible, granted the verse in question the context has not changed regardless of which form of 1909 is used.

That being said, the next response would be the past regarding Strong's in other discussion, you best you be prepared for that because the way I see it in the situation of Strong's is nothing more than the KJVO discussions I've been in.

@Outta Here Starting to realize that this is a repeat of 2018.

I remember stating he following:

On 9/25/2018 at 5:17 AM, Space Merchant said:

The funny thing about Biblehub is no one pays attention to commentary, the fact that it shows in the both of these misguided ones, who agree with each other and say they read the Bible, is rather telling.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Ok so SM defends the CCJW. So be it. 

Having quickly looked at Wiki regarding Strong's, I do not see any mention of God's Holy Spirit being involved. 

As I've said many times, if the Scriptures were written under the inspiration of God's Holy spirit, then it needs God's Holy spirit to understand them. 

If I am right (and SM will prob's disagree) then SM is a man that studies Religions, plural. He seems to be a Theologist. 

As there can be only one true way of serving God then would God supply Holy Spirit to help a person study Theology ? 

Being a Truther, is that what God wants ?  If it is then many of us have no chance. Why ? Because many of us are of a basic education and many things are deliberately made so complicated as to confuse many.

The old old story. If you cannot satisfy them with science, then baffle them with bulls--t. And it works. The Leaders of the CCJW have proved that it works, over and over again. 

I make no apologies to Space Merchant because I think he is sitting on the fence. That's his choice but I don't have to sit there with him  

@Srecko Sostar gave us a quote here :-

 

" quote 2: We have always used the Bible as the sole authority for our beliefs, so we have adjusted our beliefs as our understanding of the Scriptures has been clarified. *

Such changes are in harmony with the Bible principle stated at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous is like the bright morning light that grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.” Just as the rising sun reveals details of a landscape ..... "

 But the problem here is this. A sensible person would not go stumbling around in the dark before the 'sun reveals details of a landscape ..' The Leaders of the CCJW / Watchtower have obviously been up too early and have stumbled themselves and many others. The blind leading the blind and both fall into the pit. 

Simply put. Why were they in so much of a hurry to run ahead of God and Christ ?  Because it has been shown that they did not wait on true spiritual guidance to lead them ..........................

[Space Merchant]

@4Jah2me It is a defense of the Strong's and it's correlation with Scripture. The most jarring thing is even with the evidence in front of you, you ignore it.

You said there viewpoint is different than you it yourself, as I invited you to post said viewpoint. Which, as with all pertaining evidence, is counted against you.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

If I am right (and SM will prob's disagree) then SM is a man that studies Religions, plural. He seems to be a Theologist. 

So like you, I am suppose to accept the fact that congregants poison their members and never die? Am I to accept and support unity despite sexual sin being rampant? Am I suppose to believe that because of someone's standing he kills his own people for honor and is justified by it? Or am I to believe everyone is guilty, hence to be quick with judgement despite only One holds the power of said judgment?

Clearly no, because I speak truth doesn't mean I have to succumb to the inability to understand things.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Having quickly looked at Wiki regarding Strong's, I do not see any mention of God's Holy Spirit being involved. 

That is why I encouraged you to do research. A quick glance at something does not negate to automatically understanding Strong's. It takes time, it takes understanding and patience. Understanding Strong's is what enables one to the realm of Hermeuntics and study of Scripture in a proper way, so when a situation comes, such as this one, the truth can be spoken, the same case I make with KJV-Onlyist.

God's Spirit is involved when the early writings were written for God has chosen these men do to as such, from Moses, to Paul, to John, etc. These men were indeed spirit filled, and God is the author of what they have written, hence Paul said in his letter to Timothy, it is God breathed. Granted that we do not have our original manuscripts, we have the copies, of which those long after the Apostles have to work with. From translation to translation and eventually into the modern tongue of which you, me and everyone else here speaks, clearly our modern tongue is not literal Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

That being said, Revelation 5:10 is as clear as day of what it means, what it is conveying. I don't see how that flew past you in this regard.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

If I am right (and SM will prob's disagree) then SM is a man that studies Religions, plural. He seems to be a Theologist. 

And what does my study of religion and all this of Abrahamic Faiths have to do with this subject matter? Is this another tool of deviation on your part because you are unwilling to provide your claims?

Yes I have studied religions for the very reason to counter falsehood and misconceptions. Both you and I can agree that God is not Triune, without the Strong's or Textual Criticism, that concept would be the end of what is true. This is one of the reasons as to why we speak up.

That being said, you have now moved from the study of Scripture to the study of religion. To deviate from what the Strong's pinpoint that is true, JB?

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

As there can be only one true way of serving God then would God supply Holy Spirit to help a person study Theology ? 

When it comes to study and teaching, the reader seeks the spirit from God to enable that person to understand. The truth of the matter must be looked for, otherwise, confusion and falsehood will become the person.

Again, we are on the subject of a verse in the Bible, adding on to deviate from the topic at hand is not going to help you here. Granted When it comes to this variation of Textual Criticism, this is where I am most serious. So deviation is, to me, seen as being evasive in the wrong way.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Being a Truther, is that what God wants ?  If it is then many of us have no chance. Why ?

Now you are tending on another territory. What does me being a Truther have to do with the discussion at hand? Mind you, quite random, as is with the religious studies part.

A Truther is someone who speaks the truth and finds truth. Outside of Christianity, the role of the truther is see what is true and push forth that truth whereas the world sees such things as right, we see it as wrong.

For instance, when it comes to homosexuality, Truthers do not condone that conduct, let alone teaching children immoral and brazen, we speak against it.

That being said, I do not know as to why you interjected Truther here, is that to commit mockery of something? Granted Truthers, in this sense when it comes to immorality are the ones who indirectly give you help by their actions of their hands? That seems like an appeal to motive granted you really do not have anything to help your case - I remain unfazed by that attempt because an appeal to motive just shows the cracks in the armor, in this case.

No chance? This just shows you do not even know what that term means, yet for some reason you had the idea of including it in a discussion for Bible Translation, as you did, with religious studies.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Because many of us are of a basic education and many things are deliberately made so complicated as to confuse many.

Strong's are not complicated. That is why I linked you my thread on 1 Timothy 3:16, that there is an obvious example compared to Revelations 5:10.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

The old old story. If you cannot satisfy them with science, then baffle them with bulls--t. And it works.

What are you talking about? Also, watch the language (Matthew 15:11; Ephesians 4:29; James 3:10)

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

The Leaders of the CCJW have proved that it works, over and over again. 

What are you talking about? You went from Rev. 5:10 to religious studies, to truther, to this...

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

I make no apologies to Space Merchant because I think he is sitting on the fence. That's his choice but I don't have to sit there with him  

How am I sitting on the fence for agreeing with the Strong's and context?

You said the viewpoint is different - then let's see it, I invited you to cite their findings on the verse. If I can cite my findings on the matter, what is withholding you from doing the same if you stated the viewpoint in the realm of belief is vastly different?

That being said, Strong's Concordance on the literal Greek is not going to show you any mercy if the claim is no different from 99% of the commentaries.

  

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Simply put. Why were they in so much of a hurry to run ahead of God and Christ ?  Because it has been shown that they did not wait on true spiritual guidance to lead them ..........................

I don't get what you are saying, granted the origin of T.A used in their translation that, in this case, predates them....

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@Space Merchant What I'm saying is simple. That it appears that you are not seeking to serve God, but seeking to studying 'religions'. Hence your time seems to be spent trying to prove points. but you don't succeed. You only succeed in your own mind. You convince yourself that you are right, but it does not mean that you are. 

And back to the Revelation scripture. ABOVE means totally different to ON. 

So if the CCJW say the 144,000 are above the earth, then the CCJW are not saying the 144,000 are on the earth. 

But they translate it as both. 

I will push Strong's to one side because I DO NOT THINK God requires us to dig deep into the original Hebrew and Greek. Many people do not have that mindset. So they believe the things they are taught by others. 

I have said before that i believe God will provide a true Anointed to teach truth before the Judgement comes. All I am doing is pointing out a discrepancy made by the CCJW. You can believe whatever you wish. 

Ecclesiastes 12 v 12

As for anything besides these, my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh. 

[Srecko Sostar]

4 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

ABOVE means totally different to ON.

I am not native English speaker, but this is what i see correct understanding.

[JJJ-AUSTRALIA]

I don't see the point talking to SM or any JW apologetics, i was former JW and because of the GB acts i lost trust in them and the society.

I mean i bet he would even defend the name Jehovah is in the Bible 😆😆😆

But anyways everyone to their own, my concience is clear not following the watchtower anylonger i prefer wasting my life looking for God and Jesus by my own than slaving and defending the watchtower 1 more second in my life.

[Space Merchant]

@4Jah2me Well it does not stop you from citing their viewpoint. If they are in the wrong and or misleading as you claim, can you cite it here please? Even with the Strong's not in use, the context is still there, to which you said it is in err.

Also

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

And back to the Revelation scripture. ABOVE means totally different to ON.

Well if you checked the BibleHub it shows you the usages of all words in the Strong's which are appropriate for the verse in question. That being said, you have not proven anything pertaining to a Greek violation and nothing in this verse points to the latter being different.

That being said, like I said, if Strong's were to be ignored, you'd have people believing God is female, or that Jesus is cruel, which is indeed a reality for those who ignore it.

This goes hand and hand with the "nakedness" verse to which was discussed in the past.

@Srecko Sostar That is an understanding based on as how you view it, but the context and the Strong's gives us that understanding, it shows us what is being conveyed. The context of the verse in question has not changed and everyone agrees on this notion concerning the message itself. I do not see why you, Butler and everyone else is afraid to even go on Biblehub, let alone Bible Gateway, to which some of you use to use here alone.

@JJJ-AUSTRALIA Former JW or not, to go around Strong's and the context of Scripture speaks volumes, a problematic issue in the KJV-Onlyist community as it is here. The conveyance of the verse is the same even outside of the faith community in question.

Also way ahead of you, YHWH is a transliteration, there are 2 modern variations of YHWH in the modern language, Jehovah and Yahweh, Yehovah. Depending on the translation you will see one of these variations. The Tetragrammaton is H#3068. I said this to a Trinitarian a while back who said Jesus is YHWH.

• Ephesians 1:20-22 speaks of The Christ being at the right hand of God, while Philippians 2:9 speaks of Jesus not taking plunder to be equal to God. God’s name YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) is a great name as is spoken of to be The Personal and Divine Name, the Proper name of the God of Israel: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3068.htm | https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=esv&strongs=h3068 
• Another factor is Jesus’ name [Jesus] means Yahweh/Jehovah is Salvation (Yah/Jah saves for short), evidence of the StrongÂ’s even shows us too: https://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm   | https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=esv&strongs=g2424

That being said, the problem I see here is not the verse in question, but, because they said it, yet, when the real information is addressed, with source included, and the Strong's to back it up.

[Srecko Sostar]

I put "Jehovah's Witnesses" in Bible hub .....and nothing :))

[Space Merchant]

47 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I put "Jehovah's Witnesses" in Bible hub .....and nothing :))

Let me help you with that, focus on the verse in question, I could not find "Glasglow", "Abraham being selfish" or "God approving brazen conduct" on Biblehub either. The website is verse associated and commentary filled.

Perhaps instead of ignoring the subject matter, check the links. You use to favor biblehub yet when it does not fit your narrative you willfully ignore it.

https://biblehub.com/revelation/5-10.htm

Also if you forgot how to use your favorite website, here is a tutorial, she pretty much points out some of the things I pointed out

 

On 6/10/2020 at 1:49 PM, Space Merchant said:

They are both correct. Case and point.

• https://studybible.info/strongs/G1909
• https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G1909/epi.htm
• https://biblehub.com/greek/1909.htm

As I told @4Jah2me , the same thing. granted all the roots point to 1909, there is no violation of Scripture in the Greek text. Translations indeed look different, but each word still lines up accordingly with the Strong's number itself.

Now, here is an legitimate example. I linked to @4Jah2me 1 Timothy 3:16. There IS A VIOLATION in this verse. This Strong's was added G#2316. The other violates, in passage form would be Acts 8:37, this verse does not exist, hence omitted. Another would be Revelations 1:11 whereas the KJV added a sentence to this verse, likewise to 1 John 5:7.

I linked you the same website a long time ago relating to another verse, same correlation with Bible Strong's in the past:

This goes back to the lesson on Biblical Facts, for you really cannot do much if it is the Bible alone. You've proven my point yet again.

From even then to now, 2020, you still haven't learned, therefore that remark of sharpens of which you stated is contradicting.