It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by CLPrime
I also want to point out that, at the beginning of Book V, Chapter 30 of Irenaeus' Against Heresies, he writes:
"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]."
If Irenaeus is writing 75 years after John's exile, then could he honestly call the earliest approved copies of the Revelation "ancient"?
Plus, here Irenaeus is saying that it was John who was seen. That ties in well with what he says just two paragraphs later - namely, that, "it/he was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."
Question: does your head hurt?
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Just wondering. I love doing research like this, as well, but it usually leaves me with a headache. Trying to decipher fact from tradition from rumor from lie is fun but frustrating.
The word's use by Jesus would seem to indicate its definition - essentially, "a long time ago." Not to mention the fact that the word is the origin of the English word "archaic," the definition of which speaks for itself. The context of Irenaeus' statement doesn't suggest any other definition, as long as we don't have any preconceived ideas concerning the date of Revelation. He seems to be referring to the earliest and most approved copies of the Apocalypse as "ancient."
Not that it matters, anyway. It's just an incidental thing, it doesn't have much proving power one way or the other.
Originally posted by Sigismundus
I will provide you with a modern American English translation which you can go to someone older and help you verify as you tried to do with your Koine – since you still seem a little apprehensive about what I have to say on these threadlets – as if it’s all new information to you !!!!
Originally posted by Sigismundus
The other issue is 'what exact Koine Greek text version' did you use to translate? That is a very important point, since it affects what comes out in modern American English at the other end !!
Originally posted by CLPrime
Originally posted by Sigismundus
The other issue is 'what exact Koine Greek text version' did you use to translate? That is a very important point, since it affects what comes out in modern American English at the other end !!
I used the text of Westcott and Hort. I've also made use of the images and transcripts they did of the Codex Sinaiticus (though, of course, I don't have them in the sense that it's some great feat to get a hold of them - they are, after all, freely available to anyone who wants to Google them).
Personally, I don't prefer the Alexandrian text over the Byzantine text. I just used the Alexandrian text because I had it.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And they founded the Hermes Club, which you mentioned. That's necromancy, it was a capital offense in the OT. "Ghost chasers". (demons)
They were also members of Madame Blavatsky's Theosophy Society, and if you know anything about Luciferians that should make you shudder.
He certainly didn't proclaim the deity of Christ, nor the blood atonement, said he felt the Romish view of Christianity was more true than the Evangelical (works salvation + Jesus as a condiment), Felt Maryolotry was just as important as Christ worship, and I could go on.
One quote from him I agree with:
"Most assuredly I should have been called a heretic."
Yes you should have, yes indeed.