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

[Space Merchant]

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

SM is actually worse than TTH for writing books. I just could not be bothered to read it all. I glanced over bits. There is nothing spiritual there to be learnt.

All my sources are both fact and true.

Nothing to be learnt? You do realize what Conveying Scripture is, if it were not for my conveying of the verse, you would not know what God's Kingdom location is, for I pointed this out.

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

I did notice SM accuse me of something to do with picking quotes from Biblehub to suit myself.

After the ESV you skipped over, there is an order to which Biblehub cites all translations. Therefore, you have suited yourself granted the other ones that does not correlate with what you stated previous are mentioned there. Regardless, that is what 1909 is, those words, nothing you can do can change this notion for this is true to all who are learning the literal Greek.

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

But in fact i had picked the two different examples 'on' and 'above'.

The later statement you picked 5, I quoted you. I merely put all 23.

If you wanted to focus on the first two, then you would not have a need to cite the others.

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

SM I cannot be bothered with your domineering attitude.

Because you do not know anything about the Bible context as is with the wording itself from literal to English? It is right in front of you.

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

YOU think YOU are right.

Because I am, as is with my sources.

God has a Kingdom, he has a King, the King has subjects who will rule with him from the heavenly Kingdom, to those who inhabit the earth. Tell me how is this wrong?

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

That's good enough for YOU. 

Granted everything even the context is right?

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

As for me I know that i don't need to rely on your opinions. 

These are not my opinions, this is primarily Bibical Hermeneutics. And it takes literally 5 minutes of hermeneutics to realize the context of this verse alone, but for you, it must need to take the discovery of the Lost City of Atlantis to find out the meaning of a somewhat short verse.

Also

• An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
• Bible hermeneutics is the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.

I consider the context of the verse as - both FACT and TRUE

That being said, as you claimed this, to which Srecko sided with you.

If I am in the wrong, all you need to do is prove it. You said that their viewpoint fits their doctrine and or beleif, that is the point and claim you made.

If this is true, what is stopping you from pointing out how their viewpoint is wrong vs the truth of what the verse is telling us?

The truth of the matter is JWs, as with all Restorationist and Non-Trinitarians believe and apply the same context of Revelations 5:10. The doctrine only changes if the individual is a Trinitarian.

The simple change to bleieving that Jesus is God spins Revelations 5:10 into something else.

 

I like this statement of yours

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

I know that i don't need to rely on your opinions. 

The spotlight is on you, Butler.

[Witness]

4 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

If I am in the wrong, all you need to do is prove it. You said that their viewpoint fits their doctrine and or beleif, that is the point and claim you made.

If this is true, what is stopping you from pointing out how their viewpoint is wrong vs the truth of what the verse is telling us?

In Rev 5:10, the verb “epi” commonly translated as “over” by the WT, supports their doctrine that the 144,000 will be found ruling over the earth, from “heaven”.  If it was translated as “on” the earth, it would blow their doctrine to pieces. 

Scriptures support the use of “on” for Rev 5:10, since God’s word declares the anointed BRIDE “coming down from heaven” with Jesus Christ.  The Temple of God is not a fixed place.  It is like a “tabernacle”; mobile, built with “living stones”. 1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17 “New Jerusalem” is not a fixed place in heaven.  If it was, we wouldn’t find it coming to earth, “prepared as a bride for her husband”. 

“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

² And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

³ And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.  Rev 21:1-3

“After this I looked, and I saw in heaven the temple—that is, the tabernacle (tent) of the covenant law—and it was opened.”  Rev 15:5

“This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.”  Heb 8:10

The priests cannot teach God’s laws to His people, if they are stuck in heaven. 

“And that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by the hand of Moses.”  Lev 10:11

“For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge,
And people should seek the law from his mouth;
For he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.”  Mal 2:7

Can WT’s literal 144,000 priests remain in heaven and teach God’s laws to the people on earth?  That would take a huge bullhorn that each one must keep in a drawer of their literal green throne.  Maybe cell phones will still be in use. What the WT concocts ridicules God's Word.  

“Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; ²¹ nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”  Luke 17:20-21

The called, chosen and faithful "144,000", ARE the Bride of Christ, who will be found on the earth with Jesus.

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“Let all the angels (messengers) of God worship Him.”  Heb 1:6

 

Jacob's Ladder - http://jacobsladder-obadiah.blogspot.com/

 

[Witness]

8 hours ago, Outta Here said:

More lame logic. Trust in men is presented as some sort of extreme error. There is nothing wrong in trusting men.

I trusted my father.  Everyone in my town trusted my father and there was nothing wrong in doing that.  

The scriptures point to a certain type of man we shouldn’t trust - the arrogant ones, those who love their riches and the organization those riches produced. We don't trust those who put their organization before God.  It is these men among “Jacob”, that we are not to trust.

Isaiah, chapter 2

 

[Witness]

8 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

You can no longer profane 1975

How can you profane a date?

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

7 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

YOU think YOU are right.

Because I am, as is with my sources.

God has a Kingdom, he has a King, the King has subjects who will rule with him from the heavenly Kingdom, to those who inhabit the earth. Tell me how is this wrong?

No you are not wrong because of fact how all this you numbered is your FAITH and BELIEVES. This is your version, based on text and based on versions of text. And based on particular interpretations of text and versions that are sourced in you or sourced in other people and organizations.

You can stop this agony with just one word, to say: Yes. :))  

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

you would not know what God's Kingdom location is

WTJWorg GB know. :)) They said they are living in Spiritual Paradise now and here. According to this claim people could conclude how Kingdom is on Earth, because Jesus as King is coming in 1914 to visit the Earth. Obviously he stay and spread his Kingdom around the globe with a little help and by means of WT Society.

Perhaps GB source for this knowledge is also in Bible hub? 

Also you said how WTJWorg speak the truth. Well we have Two Witnesses for same claim: You and WTJWorg GB.

[Evacuated]

New International Version
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."
New Living Translation
And you have caused them to become a Kingdom of priests for our God. And they will reign on the earth.”
English Standard Version
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”
Berean Study Bible
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign upon the earth.”

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“And you have made them a Kingdom, Priests and Kings to our God, and they shall reign over The Earth.”

On 6/11/2020 at 10:08 PM, 4Jah2me said:

If I'm living ON THE EARTH that is different to if I'm living OVER THE EARTH. (in heaven)

There is a fault in the logic here.

The statement itself could be true. BUT, the list of cited scriptures preceding this statement, for which it is presented as a conclusion, refer to rulership, not domicile. The reality however is that a king can rule "over" or "on" a territory without personally being there.

So, there is actually a disconnect between the conclusion and the citations presented as the supporting evidence. The citations merely indicate that different translators have decided on what they consider to be a contextually appropriate rendering for the preposition epi.

The end result of the rendering serves either to clarify or slightly obscure the meaning, which itself still remains apparent either way. It is just a question of reasoning effort on the part of the reader which is reduced by the translator  rendering epi  "over" as opposed to "on". Either rendering is acceptable as the meaning itself is not altered.

On 6/8/2020 at 9:58 PM, 4Jah2me said:

In most translations I have looked at it reads as :  'on the earth'.   Why do the GB / Writing Dept translate it as Over the earth ? 

So, in answer to the OP, a translator is perfectly at liberty to make a choice between words in their rendering a text into another language where such choice is extended by the nature of the original language. In answer to "Why?", then for the sake of clarity of  the meaning of the text is the reason. In this case, the translator's word choice is quite acceptable according to the various dictionary definitions cited. The understanding of the text is enhanced, not altered. Either rendering epi as "on" or "over" does not change the meaning of the text. It is just that "over" is a better word choice for the sake of style and economy of the effort to comprehend.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Exactly! Why do you keep bringing it up? Therefore, it's not the date but your own action. That way Srecko can laugh at commonsense. 😏

If that would make you smiling too.

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

On 6/11/2020 at 11:08 PM, 4Jah2me said:

If I'm living ON THE EARTH that is different to if I'm living OVER THE EARTH. (in heaven)

There is a fault in the logic here.

Yes it is. :))) @4Jah2me is not in position to rule over but to live over something, someone...  like me and many other people. 

I live over a musician, and he's constantly keeping me awake with his practicing. :)))))

5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

The reality however is that a king can rule "over" or "on" a territory without personally being there.

Now I can see logic in WTJWorg GB interpretations about 1914 Kingdom and Spiritual Paradise where JW members living till today ...... All is in their heads because, The understanding of the text is enhanced, not altered.

The understanding was enhanced with progressive clarifications and changed approach to Bible text, according to WT study magazine. Nothing was altered, nothing :)))))

[Evacuated]

30 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Now I can see logic in WTJWorg GB interpretations

Well done!

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

I am now wondering if Outta Here and SM are one and the same person .

They have the same way of talking rubbish. 

I am now sat ON my chair. I am not sat over my chair. To be ON something means touching it or resting on it.  To be over something means to be above it.  

Move on ..........................

[Anna]

Daniel 29:30 says a kingdom will rule OVER the earth: But after you another kingdom will rise,  inferior to you; then another kingdom, a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.

As @Outta Here already explained,  you can rule on or over and it doesn't make much difference in the context under discussion. However, grammatically I would prefer to rule over @4Jah2me if I become Queen of England,  not on him.

In any case, it is quite clear Revelation 5:10 is talking about pesons in heaven. If we were to apply it to an earthly scene, Jehovah would literally have to  be seated on a throne ON earth in order for Jesus,  "the lamb who was slaughtered" to be seated next to him ON earth. We know Jesus went to heaven and sat at the right hand of God in heaven. We also know that Jesus promised his followers in the 1st century that they would be seated next to him. We know there is a heavenly hope. So for clarities sake it is more accurate to say they will be ruling over the earth rather than on it. Evidently, saying on the earth is confusing, as made evident by the need to make this a topic for discussion in the first place.