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

[Space Merchant]

3 hours ago, Witness said:

My view has not wavered one bit.    

You say this, but our discussion on the living stones and the spiritual house when it was addressed regarding the chosen ones, remained the same, yet on here, even if I took a snippet of from you in said discussion, it is deemed wrong now.

Granted you say this, to which Kosnen and I are skeptical, you should know your position as that of the priesthood, but to agree with him, I am starting to see why the view is held to which he seeks others like him. So the latter was right.

[Witness]

13 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

You say this, but our discussion on the living stones and the spiritual house when it was addressed regarding the chosen ones, remained the same, yet on here, even if I took a snippet of from you in said discussion, it is deemed wrong now.

Granted you say this, to which Kosnen and I are skeptical, you should know your position as that of the priesthood, but to agree with him, I am starting to see why the view is held to which he seeks others like him. So the latter was right.

As I said, I read only a partial amount of your lengthy comments.  If you agree with something I have said here, I have overlooked it.  Dare I say this, because at least one booklet from you will emerge from it; but why Kosonen is involved, beats me.  

How about this time, you tell me what you agree with that I have said here.  

 

 

[Space Merchant]

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

"Yes. This person fully well believes that the wording in the verse, as I mentioned to you, changes everything, he even deems the Non-Trinitarian view as false."

Did you see the reply? There is only one view, to think Non-Trinitarians in general have a different belief and or viewpoint is deeming the latter as false, when it is only the Trinitarian view of the matter which is the negative one.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I believe that SM was talking to someone else about me here in this conversation, on a different forum..

Only the question raised, I even told you from the get go after citing 1 John 4:1, granted it is a serious verse to use.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

UM, he seems to KNOW exactly what I'm thinking or believing.

Because you are a Non-Trinitarian yourself, that is why. You know the position of those who will reign with Christ, yet if the latter has the exact same view, you deem it is a different viewpoint, which is incorrect. Even here it can be seen that you are one, just as I am, Witness and the others.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Does he think he is now God ? 

You can't be this serious....

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I would imagine his intent was to get me a bad reputation.

Clearly no. The thing is here I am telling you credible truth, but the problem here is you deem otherwise. Granted it is 100% true, the problem here is because the Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach it. You think this is about reputation? That is exactly what Butler said when it comes to facts to which he previous deem as true, but later false - a spun around contradiction engineered by one's own hand.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

So sad when people have to go to such extremes.

No one is going to extremes, it is not like the latter does any different anyways.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

And he says he is a Christian ?

Because I am one. As is the others. The difference, in the core, is that I do not believe Jesus is God himself.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

He never even asked me exactly what i believed,

Your responses on this forum shows that you are a Non-Trinitarian. You Believe God is the Father, do you not? That Jesus is his Son whom he sent, do you not? Clearly you do not share the viewpoint of our opposites, this goes for everyone on this thread alone.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

he just made guesses.

How is it a guess when you riddled this forum if the Non-Trinitarian view outside of anything pertaining to JWs or CSA? Must I quote you now?

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Does he even show any proof of his claims against me ?

I have. The claim of yours is that Jehovah's Witnesses have their own teaching concerning Revelations 5:10, to which the viewpoint is exactly the same as all Non-Trinitarians, Biblehub, Bible Gateway, Blue Letter, even Witness' comment from an older discussion I added on purpose, to which you deem as incorrect. Srecko, being as he is agreed with the other Christians, when I said the same thing, to which he deem as wrong.

The Non-Trinitarian view is not primarily associated with Jehovah's Witnesses due to the fact this view has been here for a long, long time on opposition to the latter view.

Next we have the wording. There is no issue with the wording because due to the fact there was no violation of the Greek Language, from commentary to scholarly notes, all stating the same thing, and understand clearly the focus of the verse in question - rulership and authority. The irony here is all marginal references for verses 9 and 10 points to the same conclusion. But you are reading the verse as normal as possible granted, an honest Bible reader can see the conveyance.

Thus both claims have, easily been rectified with Biblehub only - literally. It only took one commentary note and a Strong's number.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

But if he finds it necessary to do this type of thing to people then he will likely be judged on it by God or Christ. 

Judged for telling and speaking the truth? Seriously?

Perhaps it is not the verse in question that needs the context explained, but rather, your convolution.

The context is clearly for anyone to understand? So you must I quote a former JW then? She's Non-Trinitarian by the way:

• Quote

  : I'd hate to be a naysayer, but I believe that the NWT is taking epi + gen. NP as a genitive of subordination, which is technically valid. You can find this usage in a number of texts where epi is used to indicate authority and power over another party: "God who is over all (epi pantón) blessed forever" (Romans 9:5), "One God and Father of all, who is over all (epi pantón), and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:6), "I will give him authority over the nations (epi tón ethnón)" (Revelation 2:26), etc. Since the verb basileuousin "we shall be reigning" is specifically concerned with authority over others, I would say that the NWT rendering is probably as valid as the alternative. Another example with this verb can be found in Luke 19:14: "We will not have this man to reign over us (basileusai eph' hémas)".

  Must I go on some more?

  • [Qoute:] Actually, you make a good point..... the word "over" is ambiguous in English. Just like the word "with", which can be used for both instrumental ("I cut the bread with a knife") and accompaniment senses ("I went to the park with John"). The same goes with "over". In English, "over" can indicate a spatial location ("The astronauts were orbiting over Africa when they received the transmission"), as well as a non-spatial relation of power ("The king ruled over his subjects"). Epi is not used to indicate a spatial relation of "over" (its spatial relation is "on" or "upon"), the proper word for that is huper. So if the Society uses the probable genitive of subordination in Revelation 5:10 as indicating a location of the anointed rulers over the earth, i.e. in heaven, then that would be a misinterpretation of the given text (even if the NWT rendering is permissible).

  Again? Seems like her points mirror mine as with the Bible reading Christians, as is with the commentary, as is with the scholarly notes.

  • [Quote:] Likewise, at Revelation 5:10, those entrusted with rulership are in charge of the earth, exercising dominion over those dwelling on it. The subject matter of this text is rulership, and logically, therefore, the Greek word epi calls attention, not to the location of the rulers, but to the area over which they exercise authority. That they rule "over the earth" agrees with the rest of the Scriptures, which reveal that God’s kingdom by Christ is heavenly and that Jesus’ associate rulers are promised heavenly life.

  Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Edward D. Andrews, Robert Bratcher, Kelly, Liddell & Scott, Thyer, Friberg, Godspeed, Beck, etc. ALL address the same thing, as I do, as do those who believe that Jesus is God's Son, ALL of them pointing to the Greek proposition word "epi" All of them stating the same conclusion regarding Revelations 5:10.

  Now there ARE those out there that say otherwise, these persons are primarily Trinitarians. They take this verse and justify both wording and context as incorrect, the view that is held by Non-Trinitarians.

[Space Merchant]

2 minutes ago, Witness said:

As I said, I read only a partial amount of your lengthy comments.  If you agree with something I have said here, I have overlooked it. 

Granted the discussion of the spiritual house and the living stones, I doubt it is overlooked. You were spot on with the position of the heirs, where they will be and their role, as is those on the earth, granted despite both groups being different, they are still of that house, of which The Most High is their God and these people follow the Christ, the one who is their King - Jesus.

 

4 minutes ago, Witness said:

Dare I say this, because at least one booklet from you will emerge from it;

Granted I lessen it, as I did several times, you will often say I do not Scriptural support of this or that. When Scriptural support is pointed out, all marginal references of a verse and or passage must be laid out before us so the understanding itself can be found, as is with the conclusion. You are no different from what I do, the only difference is I break them down.

5 minutes ago, Witness said:

but why Kosonen is involved, beats me.  

Because Kosonen, and I had called to question of you stating you are among the chosen due to past remarks, one instance I even told you if you were not as you are now, you'd do a lot more to benefit from the Great Commission, hence the commission itself, you were a bit confused about the context of that in the past. But several times we can see the mix and or misapplication of Scripture and applying it for the wrong reasons and or far from what the subject connects to. You even made claims whereas the latter information state otherwise and use sources outside of Scripture to bring support to misleading information.

Hence, this is why I share that same skepticism as the latter, and to Kosonen's credit, was seeking other chosen ones without normal to odd views.

10 minutes ago, Witness said:

How about this time, you tell me what you agree with that I have said here. 

You haven't really said much on the verse in question and stated something else regarding the chosen ones that is deemed true. The focus, however, is the verse in question, the context, which is summed up in a single sentence, as is the wording, whereas there is no violation whatsoever. You were incorrect about the Concordance though, as, you did the past. Granted the concordance, it is unfounded and impossible to deem the latter as false or teaching something different when the view of the majority is the same, as I told JB, the only view that is opposite is the Trinitarian view of the chosen ones, which includes Revelations 5:10.

The thing is you, as with the others do not really know what a Greek violation is in Scripture. I cited to JB an example, for you I will show you what I had address to which you guys are ignoring.

A Text violation, be it Hebrew or Greek is when a word is add/removed, which does not match the Strong's in question, which can prove problematic when it comes to translation of the bible and or revision. The Bible is also clear on the matter, found in Deuteronomy 4:2 as with references for the verse.

1 Timothy 3:16, there is a text violation of the Greek Language, THEOS, meaning God. The earliest MS does not contain the word THEOS at all, therefore it being in the verse is a violation, which results in a another view, the Trinitarian view. It is verse errors like this that makes them assume and preach that Jesus is not the Son, but God himself. It is problematic because you have people questioning as to why God's angels do not recognize him and a list of other things. Check it out on Biblehub, for I invite you to see what I see.

The other is Revelations 1:11. similar to the first example, but there is a full sentence added with Strong's and the like that are not found in the earliest MS. Again, our last discussion you were fully aware of who and what the Alpha and Omega entails, as I do because the both of us are Non-Trinitarian. But our counterparts, like 1 Timothy 3:16 and Revelations 5:10, they see this verse as legitimate proof that Jesus is God, for they say that only God is A&O, so that makes Jesus this too, when we ourselves know the truth of the matter. again, check Biblehub, you will see the difference.

A violation of text can easily shift a viewpoint, even another teaching that correlates with belief, however, granted the verse in question, as stated, there is no violation, scholars point to the same thing, the commentary and the majority of Non-Trinitarian Christians, to the Jehovah's Witnesses credit, they see this too, even before they existed, they, as is all Restorationist hold this view, be it a single soul or organized.

That being said, Concordances and a legitimate study of Scripture is the reason we were able to find forgeries, textual alternations, added and or removed narratives in Scripture, as is with refuting the false views that is professed by mainstream Christian, i.e. the soul living when the body is dead, the teaching of God being cruel, etc. This of that nature. And most importantly, the notion of Jesus being God, which you and I both know that is an err.

Like I said, there is put 2 views on Revelations 5:10, therefore, the latter cannot have a different teaching when even their own website states the view, deem Non-Trinitarian. As for the wording itself, no violation whatsoever. Again, in the past, I encouraged you to learn Concordances, and I am telling you this now if you, like JB, are interjecting the Modern English Language to reverse ill-defined Greek Prepositions.

[Witness]

55 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Because Kosonen, and I had called to question of you stating you are among the chosen due to past remarks, one instance I even told you if you were not as you are now, you'd do a lot more to benefit from the Great Commission, hence the commission itself, you were a bit confused about the context of that in the past. But several times we can see the mix and or misapplication of Scripture and applying it for the wrong reasons and or far from what the subject connects to. You even made claims whereas the latter information state otherwise and use sources outside of Scripture to bring support to misleading information.

Hence, this is why I share that same skepticism as the latter, and to Kosonen's credit, was seeking other chosen ones without normal to odd views.

I almost choked on a piece of watermelon reading this.  Any anointed one who desires to load every JW onto an airplane and fly them to the wilderness in Australia, possesses a very unstable view of the spiritual fulfillment in Revelation. But if the two of you work well together, that’s great!

Great Commission?  SM, I was a JW, not part of the Unification Church.  I’m sorry, but you will never get it!

As for my anointing, I don’t have to prove that to you, Kosonan or anyone else.  I’m not begging anyone to believe me, since I answer only to God and Christ.  2 Tim 2:15  

 

56 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

The thing is you, as with the others do not really know what a Greek violation is in Scripture.

I think you really need to lighten up. Your determination to be beyond minutely critical of everyone's use of scripture, will only cause you health issues. I think you should pray about it.   But, even though my own life is incredibly crazy busy, I will attempt to “learn Concordances”, and I expect you will keep me in line about it.  I can’t promise anything though, since I go where the wind takes me.  🙂

[Space Merchant]

50 minutes ago, Witness said:

I almost choked on a piece of watermelon reading this.  Any anointed one who desires to load every JW onto an airplane and fly them to the wilderness in Australia, possesses a very unstable view of the spiritual fulfillment in Revelation. But if the two of you work well together, that’s great!

Interesting, may need to quote things you say in the past, in addition, the latter is not JW. The notion of rulership concerning the heirs is not unstable, it is what it is - truth. Same can be said as to where they will be ruling from - hence, the Heavenly Kingdom itself is in Heaven.

To Edward Andrews' credit, he also points out that the context of the verse in question, Revelations 5:10, to which he stated that regardless, the reader would be able to see for themselves Jesus, as is with the heirs, will rule over the inhabitants who are on the earth.

That is one of several scholarly notes, which is identical to the viewpoint in question.

That being said, it is also more than that obvious granted others, before I even made mention to it calls such into question, namely some of the interpretations you pose.

Not really, granted your discussion with Kosonen is evident. The Chosen Ones normally do not call out to others, however, they are capable of discernment.

50 minutes ago, Witness said:

Great Commission?  SM, I was a JW, not part of the Unification Church.  I’m sorry, but you will never get it!

That is an interesting remark, perhaps you may need to read Matthew Matthew 28:16-20, which is the notion of The Great Commission. The preaching of the good news gospel and the spread of the Messianic Age. The church Christians are of, that of the Christ, which connects well with the living stones discussion. Things of that nature you should know, be it JW or not. It can also be noted that this correlates with the resurrected Jesus Christ to his disciples to spread the gospel to all the nations of the world. The most famous version of The Great Commission is in is in the cited verse, as is, with the context (again with this passage, wording differs in translation, but the Strong's are correct), where on a mountain in Galilee Jesus calls on his followers to make disciples of and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Then we have the events of Pentecost 33 A.D, and onward regarding Christians of the early apostolic church, those in union with Christ, Jesus.

Christians are the ones to profess Scripture and truth, enable those to learn about God, about Christ in order to gain eternal life (John 17:3), as is with learning all things pertaining to the promises of God's Kingdom, as is with his purpose...

That was an obvious one, thought you would have noted that one.

That being said, no different from what we both stated in the past, regarding heavenly Jerusalem, the Christians and those of the Priesthood.

59 minutes ago, Witness said:

I think you really need to lighten up. Your determination to be beyond minutely critical of everyone's use of scripture, will only cause you health issues. I think you should pray about it.   But, even though my own life is incredibly crazy busy, I will attempt to “learn Concordances”, and I expect you will keep me in line about it.  I can’t promise anything though, since I go where the wind takes me.  🙂

Take the time to do so, for such things are indeed important. The basics can be learnt in under 10 minutes, as both links and the example tutorial shown to Screko. Surely sparing 10 minutes would not commit injury. To ignore the genitive when the verb is in use is evident on your account, therefore, it is something important.

My focus is primarily the verse in the subject itself, granted with 100% evidence in this regard, but you and the latter deem otherwise, even when there is ample evidence of the matter.

That being said, you did this last time, and like every time, it is the same situation... Also yes, but as a follower of the Christ, he gave command did he not concerning the Great Commission did he not? That is something we as Christians must adhere to.